Pelosi: Consitutional Authority "is not a serious question"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution.

so if the constitution doesn't specifically ban something then it is therefore constitional to do it....

According to some on this board, yes. But certainly not according to the Constitution itself.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution.

Again, as the legislatures of the States have all legislative power not prohibited to them, while Congress can only exercise certain enumerated powers for accomplishing specified objects,

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN. *FN1, 17 S. Ct. 326, 165 U.S. 275 (U.S. 01/25/1897)

 

[Ame®icano]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.

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.”

CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

.


Ever hear of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause?

In order to invoke the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution), one must first demonstrate that the law in question is being directly applied to "the foregoing powers" specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution. As healthcare is not specifically enumerated anywhere in the Constitution (at this time), the necessary and proper clause cannot be applied.

 

[Contumacious]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.



CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

.


Ever hear of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause?

In order to invoke the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution), one must first demonstrate that the law in question is being directly applied to "the foregoing powers" specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution. As healthcare is not specifically enumerated anywhere in the Constitution (at this time), the necessary and proper clause cannot be applied.

Exactly.

.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I used the FDR detention of Japanese descendants as my example for a reason.

The fact that it was not a law (but could have been) is not important. The example served its purpose all the same.

IF such a "law" got passed tomorrow (substitute Arab for Japanese): it would be (in my estimation) pretty clearly UnConstitutional. Would it be any less so just because no Court had yet made that pronouncement?

* * * *

Violations of the Constitution do not invalidate the Constitution. The fact that Constitution has been violated does not make future violations somehow encouraging and legal. The same stands for the laws. I think.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

It's very easy to understand. The point you are missing is that the proponents will simply say it is enumerated because it falls under the Commerce Clause, and given the last 50 or 60 years of Commerce Clause law the courts will likely agree with them.

Commerce clasue mean what founding fathers intended it to mean, not what someone would like it to mean. The Constitution can and should be amended and there is a way to do it, just like laws can be altered, repealed, and instituted when needs change. That doesn't imply that the Constitution and Laws are somehow subject to interpretation.

Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

Congress is only authorized to exercise the specific powers mentioned after the preamble. Health care is not enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 (Powers of the Congress), nor enywhere else in the Constitution, therefore it's unconstitutional.

Pelosi's office tried to say that they are authorized via interstate commerce, explaining what "regulating interstate commerce" actually means is beside the point. You see, health care is barred from being sold across state lines. Therefore it cannot *possibly* be authorized under this power.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

You think you can sue the government just like that? Let me enlighten you, just a little.

It's a little thing called soveriegn immunity, which has been enacted within our federal laws. It requires, unless there is demonstrable negligence by a federal employee that is, the Goverments permission to sue the Government. Which by the way in and of itself was and is a violation of our Constitution.

Here is some reading material for you. Federal Tort Claims Act

 

[lawbuff]

You think you can sue the government just like that? Let me enlighten you, just a little.

It's a little thing called soveriegn immunity, which has been enacted within our federal laws. It requires, unless there is demonstrable negligence by a federal employee that is, the Goverments permission to sue the Government. Which by the way in and of itself was and is a violation of our Constitution.

Here is some reading material for you. Federal Tort Claims Act

If I may, the FTCA has NO bearing here. To challenge the Constitutionality of a law, one would basically file a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief, and cite the Declaratory Judgments Act and any Constitutional violation alleged.

There is no Sovereign Immunity here.

State courts are generally not divested of federal claims, but it would easily be removable to federal court under the Judiciary Code if filed in a state court.

In essence, you are asking (moving) the Court to issue a Declaration that a law violates the federal constitution, and if agreed upon, issue an Injunction to halt it's enforcement.

 

[lawbuff]

Here is the 1st challenge concerning the Constitutionality of Social Security. The SC ruled it was within the power of Congress to enact the tax under the General Welfare clause:

In part:

3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 301 U. S. 640.

4. In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary. P. 301 U. S. 640.

5. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 301 U. S. 641.



HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U. S. 619 (1937) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[lawbuff]

Here is a classic example of a Declaratory action seeking Injunctive relief.

We all remember the Roy Moore 10 Commandments fiasco;


http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/jhnsnhobson103001.pdf


In addition, since the SC does NOT issue advisory opinions, no direct route is available except upon a grant of certirorari from an inferior court or under it's rule 20.

Mandamus has been abolished to secure relief to prevent enforcement of a federal law, so it's passage must be dealt with 1st.


(b) Scire Facias and Mandamus.
The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished. Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 81 (LII 2007 ed.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have seen the far right wingnut delusionals in full swing and sway on this page.

For starters, someone give us the brief that subsequently rejects Robertson v. Baldwin.

 

[Steerpike]

Commerce clasue mean what founding fathers intended it to mean, not what someone would like it to mean.

That's easy to say, but if the Supreme Court consistently interprets it differently and upholds acts of Congress then it is a moot point, because as it stands now they make the ultimate determination of Constitutionality, not any of us here in the forums.

 

[Liability]

FDR did such, by Executive Order, but not by Congressional enactment.

I used the FDR detention of Japanese descendants as my example for a reason.

The fact that it was not a law (but could have been) is not important. The example served its purpose all the same.

IF such a "law" got passed tomorrow (substitute Arab for Japanese): it would be (in my estimation) pretty clearly UnConstitutional. Would it be any less so just because no Court had yet made that pronouncement?

* * * *

Violations of the Constitution do not invalidate the Constitution. The fact that Constitution has been violated does not make future violations somehow encouraging and legal. The same stands for the laws. I think.

Huh?

I never said or suggested that a violation of the Constitution invalidates the Constitution. A violation of the Constitution invalidates the LAW. The fact that prior laws may have violated the Constitution should not serve as a precedent for future violations, either.

 

[lawbuff]

We have seen the far right wingnut delusionals in full swing and sway on this page.

For starters, someone give us the brief that subsequently rejects Robertson v. Baldwin.

Shepardize the case and see the results.

In my SS case I cited, it controverts the dictum found in Roberts. Dictum, even before a so called stare decisis reversal, is not precedential.

page 302 from Roberts:

Again, as the legislatures of the states have all legislative power not prohibited to them, while congress can only exercise certain enumerated powers for accomplishing specified objects, why may not the states, under the principles this day announced, compel all employees of railroads engaged in domestic commerce, and all domestic servants, and all employees in private establishments, within [165 U.S. 275, 303] their respective limits, to remain with their employers during the terms for which they were severally engaged, under the penalty of being arrested by some sheriff or constable, and forcibly returned to the service of their employers?

This was a HC case and the ruling was limited specifically to it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

God bless the new America.. you get fined for not buying things.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

This post already exist in Pelosi gem collection - Nancy said... but I think it deserve special attention.

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.”

CNSNews.com

Since Pelosi refused to answer, question remain:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

It is a simple direct question. If you don't know, say so or don't reply. If it doesn't, say so. If it does, please tell me where.

In my opinion, this particular subject does not fall under one of the enumerated powers of Congress, much less any other part of the Constitution. If they do pass legislation on this matter, it will be unconstitutional, in my opinion.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution

Dumbfuck post alert!!!

 

[obama2ndterm]

Just a tip for the wing-nuts
This is not an entitlement program.It is fully funded by premiums, not taxes!

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have seen the far right wingnut delusionals in full swing and sway on this page.

For starters, someone give us the brief that subsequently rejects Robertson v. Baldwin.

Shepardize the case and see the results.

In my SS case I cited, it controverts the dictum found in Roberts. Dictum, even before a so called stare decisis reversal, is not precedential.

page 302 from Roberts:

Again, as the legislatures of the states have all legislative power not prohibited to them, while congress can only exercise certain enumerated powers for accomplishing specified objects, why may not the states, under the principles this day announced, compel all employees of railroads engaged in domestic commerce, and all domestic servants, and all employees in private establishments, within [165 U.S. 275, 303] their respective limits, to remain with their employers during the terms for which they were severally engaged, under the penalty of being arrested by some sheriff or constable, and forcibly returned to the service of their employers?

This was a HC case and the ruling was limited specifically to it.

If what you say is true, then ruling applies only to that immediate jurisdiction and no others? Please give us more background. Don't tell me to shepardize when it is your duty to post the relevant facts, not for others to ferret them out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution does not ban health insurance reform anymore than it does automobile regulation. To think otherwise merely reveals one's lack of understanding about the Constitution

Dumbfuck post alert!!!

Because you have an unfounded, differing opinion? Silly Soggy.