emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” Allowing Congress to exert such authority, he said, “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”
Compelling vehicle owners to carry accident insurance, as states do, is considered a different matter because the Constitution gives the states broad police powers that have been interpreted to encompass that. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that people possess cars, only a requirement that they have insurance as a condition of doing so. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the health care case argue that the new law requires people to obtain health insurance simply because they exist."
-- Judge Hudson, Federal District Court, Richmond VA
===========================================================
Penelope is one of many arguing
that people who agree to State laws requiring car insurance
ought to agree to Federal laws requiring health insurance.
I argued that
* State laws involve a different process of representation for local citizens
than Federal laws that are harder to change because they affect citizens in ALL 50 STATES
* Car insurance is different from health insurance
* Just because people consent to one law doesn't mean we "should be forced to comply with other laws"
I compared this to Penelope agreeing to mandates, restrictions, and penalties in "right to health care" laws;
but NOT agreeing to "right to life" laws that are DIFFERENT
I challenge Penelope to prove that
* State laws are the same as Federal laws
* Car insurance is the same as health insurance
And invite anyone else to either help her prove her points,
or help EXPLAIN to Penelope how these are different
where she AGREES and ACCEPTS the explanation.
Just telling her otherwise does not count as explaining it clearly.
I will believe this point is presented clearly
when she HERSELF agrees there is a DIFFERENCE on BOTH counts!
Thank you!
Compelling vehicle owners to carry accident insurance, as states do, is considered a different matter because the Constitution gives the states broad police powers that have been interpreted to encompass that. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that people possess cars, only a requirement that they have insurance as a condition of doing so. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the health care case argue that the new law requires people to obtain health insurance simply because they exist."
-- Judge Hudson, Federal District Court, Richmond VA
===========================================================
Penelope is one of many arguing
that people who agree to State laws requiring car insurance
ought to agree to Federal laws requiring health insurance.
I argued that
* State laws involve a different process of representation for local citizens
than Federal laws that are harder to change because they affect citizens in ALL 50 STATES
* Car insurance is different from health insurance
* Just because people consent to one law doesn't mean we "should be forced to comply with other laws"
I compared this to Penelope agreeing to mandates, restrictions, and penalties in "right to health care" laws;
but NOT agreeing to "right to life" laws that are DIFFERENT
I challenge Penelope to prove that
* State laws are the same as Federal laws
* Car insurance is the same as health insurance
And invite anyone else to either help her prove her points,
or help EXPLAIN to Penelope how these are different
where she AGREES and ACCEPTS the explanation.
Just telling her otherwise does not count as explaining it clearly.
I will believe this point is presented clearly
when she HERSELF agrees there is a DIFFERENCE on BOTH counts!
Thank you!