POLL: Do you believe ACA mandates are Unconstitutional? Yes, No, or Both?

ACA Mandates - Unconstitutional? Yes, No, Both or Other?


  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
This OP brings up TWO different questions of (a) whether the ACA mandates were Unconstitutional by the literal Constitution and process; (b) they violated Constitutional BELIEFS, and if "political beliefs" count under "religious freedom" protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Civil Rights principles against discrimination by creed.

Do you believe the ACA Mandates were/are Unconstitutional?

A. Yes, by violating Constitutional principles or process* that ARE established laws

B. Yes, by violating Constitutional BELIEFS on principles or process* (ie even if people do not AGREE those BELIEFS are established Constitutional laws)

* including arguments against govt regulating religious freedom, prohibiting or establishing beliefs through federal govt, rights of people and states, requirement of Constitutional Amendment, no taxation without representation, no involuntary servitude, no depriving liberties without due process of laws, equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed, consent of the governed, civil liberties or freedom of choice, etc.

C. No, once a law is passed by Congress and upheld by Courts it is Constitutional

D. Yes and No, it is Constitutional for those who believe it is, and Unconstitutional for those who believe it is not; thus if this distinction is not recognized and the mandates made optional for those who don't believe they are Constitutional, then that enforcement imposes on people against their beliefs, which is discriminatory and Unconstitutional

E. Other Brilliant Answer - Please Elaborate, Educate and Enlighten us!
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
19,412
Reaction score
11,138
Points
1,295
Location
The Southwestern Desert
Please provide the Constitutional justification for mandating health insurance. I've read the Constitution but I guess I missed the section on levying taxes on citizens to punish citizens for opting out of healthcare.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
There's no question it is constitutional.

The freaking heritage foundation were the ones that developed the damn thing in the first place.
Dear ScienceRocks
1. the plan you refer to covered insurance for CATASTROPHIC cases only NOT DAILY CARE AND NOT DICTATING TERMS OF INSURANCE AND PAYMENTS

2. No such plan was EVER passed or voted YES on by Conservatives BECAUSE it Violates CONSERVATIVE Constitutional beliefs in states rights, individual liberties, and limited federal govt

3. I take it you believe in choice C that it is constitutional because it passed through the process as required by Congress and Courts. But the arguments remain that the CONTENTS of the mandates, in themselves, are Unconstitutional and should NOT have been passed, approved or enforced by ANY branch of federal govt.

Do you agree that you believe in C but others do not?
you can believe they are wrong, but that doesn't change the belief the Supreme Court was wrong in ruling this as a constitutional tax. The Courts also ruled in favor of treating slaves as property under govt endorsed laws; and that was contested and later abolished.

My argument is even though this law went through the process, the content violates beliefs and discriminates by religious affiliation and by creed. So the content of the REGULATIONS are unconstitutional, and establishing/enforcing them is discriminatory.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Please provide the Constitutional justification for mandating health insurance. I've read the Constitution but I guess I missed the section on levying taxes on citizens to punish citizens for opting out of healthcare.
Dear MarathonMike the most I can understand, is the Constitutional "belief" in "promoting the general welfare" and in health care being a "compelling enough interest" to justify govt passing this law first, then reforming it later.
Because liberals who believe in "right to health care" have the right to exercise their beliefs, somehow this got pushed through govt as "the only way" to guarantee protection and expression of that belief.

I disagree, and would equally defend the right of individuals not to be deprived of our equal liberties without "due process of law' to PROVE who was obstructing the beliefs of others in exercising their right to health care.

I believe the liberals are EQUALLY at fault for obstructing "universal care" by the liberal media systemically REJECTING Christian prayer and practice, and CENSORING knowledge and research into spiritual healing, glycoscience therapy, and other natural methods that would reduce costs of medical treatment and make "universal care" affordable to more people and save more lives.

If liberals want to fulfill universal care, the Democrats promising prison reform should lobby to redirect those state resources toward sustainable medical programs, turning facilities into schools for training and providing services to the public for the same cost and resources currently spent on the prison population alone due to corruption and waste on failed systems.

So issuing "insurance mandates" is NOT the "only way" and does not justify a "compelling interest" by govt. That argument was completely FAITH BASED and violated equal beliefs of other citizens opposed.
 

BlackFlag

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
21,292
Reaction score
1,849
Points
280
Location
America
If you need healthcare to keep you alive, then you are not an asset to this Nation and should commit seppuku for the sake of the Republic. #MAGA
 

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,323
Reaction score
3,556
Points
290
I think Republicans wanting millions of Americans to die is treason. Plain and simple.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I think Republicans wanting millions of Americans to die is treason. Plain and simple.
Dear deanrd that's like saying liberals who believe in freedom of choice want babies to die. The two are not synonymous, and neither is "wanting ppl to die" synonymous with wanting FREE CHOICE to develop OTHER WAYS of sustainable cost-effective health care instead of mandating it through govt.

Can you really not see this?

Do you want to take this to the bullring. Or do you agree this comparison is fair:
liberal belief: right to health care
conservative belief: right to life
(So if one cannot be mandated through govt against the "free choice" of ppl who disagree with that belief, why mandate the other?)

Right to life: freedom of choice not banned or penalized by govt
Right to health care: civil liberty and free market choices not banned or penalized by govt.

If free choice of abortion is different from wanting babies to die, isn't free market choice of health care ALSO different from wanting ppl to die?

deanrd if you see something wrong with this analogy please correct me

Otherwise we can take it to the bullring. Because frankly my dear, I'm growing tired of this one-sided bullshit.
 
Last edited:

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,849
Reaction score
12,611
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
There is no ‘individual mandate’ – no one is ‘mandated’ to buy health insurance; indeed, citizens are at liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

As the Supreme Court explained when upholding the ACA as Constitutional: “…the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The ACA affords citizens the freedom to decide to buy health insurance or not.

Consequently, the ACA is as a fact of law Constitutional, regardless of one’s subjective, wrongheaded opinion to the contrary.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
There is no ‘individual mandate’ – no one is ‘mandated’ to buy health insurance; indeed, citizens are at liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

As the Supreme Court explained when upholding the ACA as Constitutional: “…the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The ACA affords citizens the freedom to decide to buy health insurance or not.

Consequently, the ACA is as a fact of law Constitutional, regardless of one’s subjective, wrongheaded opinion to the contrary.
Sorry C_Clayton_Jones but the original ACA as written described it as a REQUIREMENT.

You are like saying if people are fined for public intoxication,
they can choose to be publicly intoxicated and just pay a fine.

You MIGHT have been right had the insurance been a DEDUCTION.
But the way it was written the REQUIREMENT was to buy insurance
and the EXEMPTIONS were the exception to the rule.

(And if you are so against govt regulating on the basis of religion, you
might note that the religious exemptions discriminated by whether people
were PAID MEMBERS of CERTAIN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
APPROVED BY FEDERAL GOVT. That should have been a red flag
for you, if you were consistent with your own principles. Thank you C_Clayton_Jones for your honest response demonstrating otherwise. At least you are transparent and willing to communicate and stand for what you believe, biased as it is.)
 
Last edited:
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
There is no ‘individual mandate’ – no one is ‘mandated’ to buy health insurance; indeed, citizens are at liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

As the Supreme Court explained when upholding the ACA as Constitutional: “…the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The ACA affords citizens the freedom to decide to buy health insurance or not.

Consequently, the ACA is as a fact of law Constitutional, regardless of one’s subjective, wrongheaded opinion to the contrary.
Dear C_Clayton_Jones:

1. Not only was the ACA passed by Congress by voting on it AS A PUBLIC HEALTH BILL (or else it would fail had it been voted on a TAX bill); then later argued and reinterpreted as a TAX by the Supreme Court. so that the bill was not passed through both Congress and Courts as a tax, but was interpreted two different ways.

2. But Justice Roberts actually rewrote the "requirement" in order to interpret it as a tax. The Court is NOT supposed to exercise "legislative" power by changing a law "in order to save it."

This was unprecedented and is still challenged today, though the fix is "supposed" to be through the legislature, and that is now tied up in debate because this questionable bill was passed in the first place.

3. Other issues still debated include the Constitutional principle that states have to ratify an Amendment specifically granting more such power to federal govt BEFORE the legislature can make such a law to begin with.

I understand that by your "political beliefs" you do not hold these necessary. You "believe" it is Constitutional because it passed through Courts and Congress, despite these other arguments that the PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.

Thus, my argument is that Constitutionalists who BELIEVE the process was violated and THUS the law does NOT REPRESENT the democratic consent of the governed people and states, then this was fraudulent to declare it Constitutional as law.

(This is like someone enforcing a contract as legally binding, although it was misrepresented as meaning one thing, then changing it to mean another; and the party to the contract objects to the changes.)

Again, I would compare this to how liberals rejected the WMD arguments as justifications for Congress voting for war; and once the Democrats decided they were 'defrauded' by false information, they wanted to void that vote. In that case, Bush retracted and said he had no proof of WMD; so the liberals used that to argue the vote to go to war should be voided.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top