What CAN'T the federal government require you to purchase?

[Maple]

Unless the insurance companies have offices in variou states, hmmmm?

Jake, that's what we have been hollering about, you can't purchase health insurance across state lines, due the restrictions that have been placed by state governments.

That's what we wanted-- to make the insurance industry competitive and less costly, competition drives DOWN costs.

 

[Maple]

“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said.

Don't these ******* morons realize that the federal government already requires citizens purchase medicare? You don't think the Justices who hear this crap are going to get a laugh when they ask the question "Where the **** was your whining in 1965 when Medicare got passed" ?

Your argument does not hold water- medicare was in a form of a payroll TAX, not a purchase of insurance through a private entity.

 

[Bern80]

but bern, isn't this whole thread about people presenting arguments you wont accept?

Yeah it pretty much is. I can listen to a good argument, I just haven't heard any. Maybe the question needs to be clarified. It presumes, for the sack of argument, that it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.

If that is true, and someday government says it's going to require you to purchase something you would rather not, what type of argument with any constitutional merit are you going to be able to come up with? How are you going to be able argue, with any consititutional authority behind it, that government can't make you purchase a certain car, a house, etc. The list could get pretty ridiculous, but what real grounds would you have to claim government can't make you do some ridiculous thing, IF at the same time, you believe they have the authority to make you purchase health insurance?

 

[boedicca]

I bet all the Car Buffs here will love it when they are forced to buy:

iowahawk: Lemon.

 

[Thinman]

but bern, isn't this whole thread about people presenting arguments you wont accept?

Yeah it pretty much is. I can listen to a good argument, I just haven't heard any. Maybe the question needs to be clarified. It presumes, for the sack of argument, that it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.

If that is true, and someday government says it's going to require you to purchase something you would rather not, what type of argument with any constitutional merit are you going to be able to come up with? How are you going to be able argue, with any consititutional authority behind it, that government can't make you purchase a certain car, a house, etc. The list could get pretty ridiculous, but what real grounds would you have to claim government can't make you do some ridiculous thing, IF at the same time, you believe they have the authority to make you purchase health insurance?

Exactly, all they have to do is add another line to your tax return.

65. Have you purchased a Federally aproved windmill or solar panel?
66. If no, enter $3000.
67. If yes enter 0.

The possibilities are endless.

 

[antagon]

but bern, isn't this whole thread about people presenting arguments you wont accept?

Yeah it pretty much is. I can listen to a good argument, I just haven't heard any. Maybe the question needs to be clarified. It presumes, for the sack of argument, that it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.

If that is true, and someday government says it's going to require you to purchase something you would rather not, what type of argument with any constitutional merit are you going to be able to come up with? How are you going to be able argue, with any consititutional authority behind it, that government can't make you purchase a certain car, a house, etc. The list could get pretty ridiculous, but what real grounds would you have to claim government can't make you do some ridiculous thing, IF at the same time, you believe they have the authority to make you purchase health insurance?

using the method of the h/c bill, the government can coerce you to buy a car, etc. and the list can get ridiculous.

that said, the constitution's major defense is suffrage. you present an argument based on the potential absurdity of the results, but do you have one that's based on the law?

this issue is solidly within the realm of politics as i see it, and distinct from a legal issue. i would even say the same about the state politicians making waves in protest. where do you see legal grounds or standing for legal opposition?

 

[Bern80]

but bern, isn't this whole thread about people presenting arguments you wont accept?

Yeah it pretty much is. I can listen to a good argument, I just haven't heard any. Maybe the question needs to be clarified. It presumes, for the sack of argument, that it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.

If that is true, and someday government says it's going to require you to purchase something you would rather not, what type of argument with any constitutional merit are you going to be able to come up with? How are you going to be able argue, with any consititutional authority behind it, that government can't make you purchase a certain car, a house, etc. The list could get pretty ridiculous, but what real grounds would you have to claim government can't make you do some ridiculous thing, IF at the same time, you believe they have the authority to make you purchase health insurance?

using the method of the h/c bill, the government can coerce you to buy a car, etc. and the list can get ridiculous.

that said, the constitution's major defense is suffrage. you present an argument based on the potential absurdity of the results, but do you have one that's based on the law?

this issue is solidly within the realm of politics as i see it, and distinct from a legal issue. i would even say the same about the state politicians making waves in protest. where do you see legal grounds or standing for legal opposition?

I would argue that the framers did not intend for the only defense against tyranny to be the voter. If that were the case the whole thing becomes a game of you have to get to them before they get to you. And such a belief would render the the constitution, which is suppossed to be the law of the land, irrelevant. Why was the entire preamble written, the section that grants government its powers, if the only check on reckless use of power is suppossed to be the voter?

The simple legal answer is that there it no provision in the constitution granting government the authority to require citizens to make private purchases. What the legislature can do is laid out quite specifically in the constutition. Based on it there are only two things government can legitiamely do, protect you from others violating your freedoms and taxing you.

 

[antagon]

Yeah it pretty much is. I can listen to a good argument, I just haven't heard any. Maybe the question needs to be clarified. It presumes, for the sack of argument, that it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.

If that is true, and someday government says it's going to require you to purchase something you would rather not, what type of argument with any constitutional merit are you going to be able to come up with? How are you going to be able argue, with any consititutional authority behind it, that government can't make you purchase a certain car, a house, etc. The list could get pretty ridiculous, but what real grounds would you have to claim government can't make you do some ridiculous thing, IF at the same time, you believe they have the authority to make you purchase health insurance?

using the method of the h/c bill, the government can coerce you to buy a car, etc. and the list can get ridiculous.

that said, the constitution's major defense is suffrage. you present an argument based on the potential absurdity of the results, but do you have one that's based on the law?

this issue is solidly within the realm of politics as i see it, and distinct from a legal issue. i would even say the same about the state politicians making waves in protest. where do you see legal grounds or standing for legal opposition?

I would argue that the framers did not intend for the only defense against tyranny to be the voter. If that were the case the whole thing becomes a game of you have to get to them before they get to you. And such a belief would render the the constitution, which is suppossed to be the law of the land, irrelevant. Why was the entire preamble written, the section that grants government its powers, if the only check on reckless use of power is suppossed to be the voter?

The simple legal answer is that there it no provision in the constitution granting government the authority to require citizens to make private purchases. What the legislature can do is laid out quite specifically in the constutition. Based on it there are only two things government can legitiamely do, protect you from others violating your freedoms and taxing you.

two feet on the ground, man. it is a leap to say that the constitution is irrelevant because of a tax condition.

its even a leap to say that any authority has been evoked to require citizens to make a purchase. instead, there's a tax provision which increases your rate if you're not insured to a standard. i dont see how it's possible for the increase to exceed the personal exemption.

i say that this is a voting issue because the man said no personal income tax hikes, and he signed a 2.5% income tax hike. that's a solid argument, while your framer's intent argument isnt.

you said it yourself: the only check on reckless use of power is supposed to be the voter. look at the republicans. the democrats have something similar in their cards if this is conceived to be a reckless use of power.

 

[Bern80]

using the method of the h/c bill, the government can coerce you to buy a car, etc. and the list can get ridiculous.

that said, the constitution's major defense is suffrage. you present an argument based on the potential absurdity of the results, but do you have one that's based on the law?

this issue is solidly within the realm of politics as i see it, and distinct from a legal issue. i would even say the same about the state politicians making waves in protest. where do you see legal grounds or standing for legal opposition?

I would argue that the framers did not intend for the only defense against tyranny to be the voter. If that were the case the whole thing becomes a game of you have to get to them before they get to you. And such a belief would render the the constitution, which is suppossed to be the law of the land, irrelevant. Why was the entire preamble written, the section that grants government its powers, if the only check on reckless use of power is suppossed to be the voter?

The simple legal answer is that there it no provision in the constitution granting government the authority to require citizens to make private purchases. What the legislature can do is laid out quite specifically in the constutition. Based on it there are only two things government can legitiamely do, protect you from others violating your freedoms and taxing you.

two feet on the ground, man. it is a leap to say that the constitution is irrelevant because of a tax condition.

its even a leap to say that any authority has been evoked to require citizens to make a purchase. instead, there's a tax provision which increases your rate if you're not insured to a standard. i dont see how it's possible for the increase to exceed the personal exemption.

i say that this is a voting issue because the man said no personal income tax hikes, and he signed a 2.5% income tax hike. that's a solid argument, while your framer's intent argument isnt.

you said it yourself: the only check on reckless use of power is supposed to be the voter. look at the republicans. the democrats have something similar in their cards if this is conceived to be a reckless use of power.

This is was basically spideys argument. That because government can tax, they can mandate whatever they want because they can tax for non-compliance. Do you understand the fallacy of that logic?

 

[antagon]

I would argue that the framers did not intend for the only defense against tyranny to be the voter. If that were the case the whole thing becomes a game of you have to get to them before they get to you. And such a belief would render the the constitution, which is suppossed to be the law of the land, irrelevant. Why was the entire preamble written, the section that grants government its powers, if the only check on reckless use of power is suppossed to be the voter?

The simple legal answer is that there it no provision in the constitution granting government the authority to require citizens to make private purchases. What the legislature can do is laid out quite specifically in the constutition. Based on it there are only two things government can legitiamely do, protect you from others violating your freedoms and taxing you.

two feet on the ground, man. it is a leap to say that the constitution is irrelevant because of a tax condition.

its even a leap to say that any authority has been evoked to require citizens to make a purchase. instead, there's a tax provision which increases your rate if you're not insured to a standard. i dont see how it's possible for the increase to exceed the personal exemption.

i say that this is a voting issue because the man said no personal income tax hikes, and he signed a 2.5% income tax hike. that's a solid argument, while your framer's intent argument isnt.

you said it yourself: the only check on reckless use of power is supposed to be the voter. look at the republicans. the democrats have something similar in their cards if this is conceived to be a reckless use of power.

This is was basically spideys argument. That because government can tax, they can mandate whatever they want because they can tax for non-compliance. Do you understand the fallacy of that logic?

this is how it works, though, bern. this is the argument that you dont want to accept.

what you are pointing out is the cup with no constitutional water in it. there are limitations to taxation - for example, that they must be uniform across the union. is there a limitation on the logical basis of laws?

my answer is that voting could do as much.

to answer your question, though, yes, i understand the implications presented by your argument.

 

[Vanquish]

Well said.

You know it's common knowledge that the founders fought against taxation without representation...but they obviously put taxation IN the constitution ... so they weren't against taxation wholesale. This idea that taxes are inherently evil has been taken to the extreme.

The broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has finally come back to bite conservatives on the ass. To find a Commerce Clause justification for an insurance mandate, all Congress has to do is show that the health of the nation’s workforce affects interstate commerce, or that doctors and patients sometimes cross state lines to give or receive health care. Given the other things that have been held to affect interstate commerce enough to support federal legislation – crime, education, the environment – health insurance regulation does not seem a stretch.

If you step back and look beyond all the twists and turns of Constitutional logic, the idea that health insurance should be regulated at the federal level makes sense. After all, almost nothing about our basic health care needs depends on what state we live in.

So now you say, well how can this be a tax if it's paid to a third party...and not to the government itself. Think of it like the minimum wage mandate. Congress passes a law that says employers need to pay a certain minimum amount not to the government but to any person they hire. The beneficiaries of that are private actors, but it's allowed under the commerce clause. Minimum wage law is constitutional and so, too, then, is the individual mandate.

 

[Bern80]

two feet on the ground, man. it is a leap to say that the constitution is irrelevant because of a tax condition.

its even a leap to say that any authority has been evoked to require citizens to make a purchase. instead, there's a tax provision which increases your rate if you're not insured to a standard. i dont see how it's possible for the increase to exceed the personal exemption.

i say that this is a voting issue because the man said no personal income tax hikes, and he signed a 2.5% income tax hike. that's a solid argument, while your framer's intent argument isnt.

you said it yourself: the only check on reckless use of power is supposed to be the voter. look at the republicans. the democrats have something similar in their cards if this is conceived to be a reckless use of power.

This is was basically spideys argument. That because government can tax, they can mandate whatever they want because they can tax for non-compliance. Do you understand the fallacy of that logic?

this is how it works, though, bern. this is the argument that you dont want to accept.

what you are pointing out is the cup with no constitutional water in it. there are limitations to taxation - for example, that they must be uniform across the union. is there a limitation on the logical basis of laws?

my answer is that voting could do as much.

to answer your question, though, yes, i understand the implications presented by your argument.

I'm not sure you do see the implication. Because the implication is that laws, in of themselves, don't have to be constitutional, simply the penalty for non-compliance of a law must be a power granted to government. It is the equivalent of saying we can make murder illegal IF we throw people in jail for it. But we can't make it illegal if the punishment is public stoning. Don't you think murder ought to be just plain illegal? What people who think this is okay seem to not get is that they are making the constitutionality of laws dependent on what the penalty is for violating them.

 

[Bern80]

Well said.

You know it's common knowledge that the founders fought against taxation without representation...but they obviously put taxation IN the constitution ... so they weren't against taxation wholesale. This idea that taxes are inherently evil has been taken to the extreme.

The broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has finally come back to bite conservatives on the ass. To find a Commerce Clause justification for an insurance mandate, all Congress has to do is show that the health of the nation’s workforce affects interstate commerce, or that doctors and patients sometimes cross state lines to give or receive health care. Given the other things that have been held to affect interstate commerce enough to support federal legislation – crime, education, the environment – health insurance regulation does not seem a stretch.

If you step back and look beyond all the twists and turns of Constitutional logic, the idea that health insurance should be regulated at the federal level makes sense. After all, almost nothing about our basic health care needs depends on what state we live in.

So now you say, well how can this be a tax if it's paid to a third party...and not to the government itself. Think of it like the minimum wage mandate. Congress passes a law that says employers need to pay a certain minimum amount not to the government but to any person they hire. The beneficiaries of that are private actors, but it's allowed under the commerce clause. Minimum wage law is constitutional and so, too, then, is the individual mandate.

Your presumption of what conservative think about taxes is off, which really throws the rest of your argument out the window. Conservatives don't have a problem with taxes as long as they are within reason. Problem is we passed the point of reason a long time ago. You aren't seeing the big picture. And that is government taxes for everything under the sun and seems to think it's purpose is to figure how to come up with new ones. Taxes are a symptom of our government's inefficiency problem.

The founders intent was to have a nation that provided basic protections funded by taxes and protect freedoms and otherwise STAY THE **** OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. I just don't get why people are trying so hard to justify this mandate. Do you just not see the big picture? Do you not get the more you tax people, in the land of the 'free', the less free you make them? Can you not get past the fact that health care has nothing to do with this?. This is a war of ideologies over the extent to which government should have control of your life. Health care is simply the current battlefield.

You can support this mandate all you want and twist the constitution into thinking it grants government the power to make people do things so you can have your precious health care. Just don't come pissing and moaning when they start making you do things you think aren't so fair. Because then you're not gonna have a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Vanquish]

Well said.

You know it's common knowledge that the founders fought against taxation without representation...but they obviously put taxation IN the constitution ... so they weren't against taxation wholesale. This idea that taxes are inherently evil has been taken to the extreme.

The broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has finally come back to bite conservatives on the ass. To find a Commerce Clause justification for an insurance mandate, all Congress has to do is show that the health of the nation’s workforce affects interstate commerce, or that doctors and patients sometimes cross state lines to give or receive health care. Given the other things that have been held to affect interstate commerce enough to support federal legislation – crime, education, the environment – health insurance regulation does not seem a stretch.

If you step back and look beyond all the twists and turns of Constitutional logic, the idea that health insurance should be regulated at the federal level makes sense. After all, almost nothing about our basic health care needs depends on what state we live in.

So now you say, well how can this be a tax if it's paid to a third party...and not to the government itself. Think of it like the minimum wage mandate. Congress passes a law that says employers need to pay a certain minimum amount not to the government but to any person they hire. The beneficiaries of that are private actors, but it's allowed under the commerce clause. Minimum wage law is constitutional and so, too, then, is the individual mandate.

Your presumption of what conservative think about taxes is off, which really throws the rest of your argument out the window. Conservatives don't have a problem with taxes as long as they are within reason. Problem is we passed the point of reason a long time ago. You aren't seeing the big picture. And that is government taxes for everything under the sun and seems to think it's purpose is to figure how to come up with new ones. Taxes are a symptom of our government's inefficiency problem.

The founders intent was to have a nation that provided basic protections funded by taxes and protect freedoms and otherwise STAY THE **** OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. I just don't get why people are trying so hard to justify this mandate. Do you just not see the big picture? Do you not get the more you tax people, in the land of the 'free', the less free you make them? Can you not get past the fact that health care has nothing to do with this?. This is a war of ideologies over the extent to which government should have control of your life. Health care is simply the current battlefield.

You can support this mandate all you want and twist the constitution into thinking it grants government the power to make people do things so you can have your precious health care. Just don't come pissing and moaning when they start making you do things you think aren't so fair. Because then you're not gonna have a legal leg to stand on.

First of all, I never said that "conservatives think taxes are inherently evil has been taken to the extreme." Scroll back. I'll wait.

I said "This idea that taxes are inherently evil has been taken to the extreme."

Great job outing your guilty conscience though. Glad you feel it applies to you.

See, I'm a CENTRIST. Read the sig below. I'm not on either side 100%. I go where the rational, well-thought-out ideas are.

Obviously the Founders didn't want totally free people...they obviously, right after they revolted from taxation without representation, gave Congress the ability to tax. See, it's not so evil. And it doesnt mean "teh enhd of Freeeedoooommm!!one one"

I'm not twisting the constitution. I know how to read it. I've spent years reading it, learning from scholars how to interpret it, and putting that knowledge into practice. In fact, I make a living out of it. And you know what, smarter people than me interpreted the Commerce Clause exactly this way...as an expansion on the powers of the legislature.

The expansion of the Commerce Clause is something that conservatives trumpeted and was done by conservative justices. Now that it's being used against you, you dont like it? Well sorry to tell you...you can't have it both ways.

This is NOT about the size of government. That's a pure partisan-hack talking point.

 

[antagon]

This is was basically spideys argument. That because government can tax, they can mandate whatever they want because they can tax for non-compliance. Do you understand the fallacy of that logic?

this is how it works, though, bern. this is the argument that you dont want to accept.

what you are pointing out is the cup with no constitutional water in it. there are limitations to taxation - for example, that they must be uniform across the union. is there a limitation on the logical basis of laws?

my answer is that voting could do as much.

to answer your question, though, yes, i understand the implications presented by your argument.

I'm not sure you do see the implication. Because the implication is that laws, in of themselves, don't have to be constitutional, simply the penalty for non-compliance of a law must be a power granted to government. It is the equivalent of saying we can make murder illegal IF we throw people in jail for it. But we can't make it illegal if the punishment is public stoning. Don't you think murder ought to be just plain illegal? What people who think this is okay seem to not get is that they are making the constitutionality of laws dependent on what the penalty is for violating them.

where the constitution is a federal construct, prosecuting murder is not among the powers afforded it to supersede states, save in cases of federal or interstate interest.

this only underscores my point with the constitution. you cant look to it for the answers to everything. it was not intended to be the law of the land in itself. we have the U.S.C. for that (@the fed lvl). taxes are part of that code. furthermore, with your murder, the crime is independent of the punishment and each could be vetted against the rights of the convicted independently. if the crime were posting on a messageboard, that would present a constitutional violation would it not?... or if your murderer did not get convicted in accord with his rights. likewise, the punishment would have to undergo its own scrutiny. like you said, you couldn't stone him even if that's how he killed his victim.

there isnt enough direct analogy between the murderer and a healthcare deadbeat. there's no crime, nor punishment, per sa. to argue the bill on a constitutional basis, you'd have to shave far closer than that, i'd say.

 

[antagon]

Your presumption of what conservative think about taxes is off, which really throws the rest of your argument out the window. Conservatives don't have a problem with taxes as long as they are within reason. Problem is we passed the point of reason a long time ago. You aren't seeing the big picture. And that is government taxes for everything under the sun and seems to think it's purpose is to figure how to come up with new ones. Taxes are a symptom of our government's inefficiency problem.

The founders intent was to have a nation that provided basic protections funded by taxes and protect freedoms and otherwise STAY THE **** OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. I just don't get why people are trying so hard to justify this mandate. Do you just not see the big picture? Do you not get the more you tax people, in the land of the 'free', the less free you make them? Can you not get past the fact that health care has nothing to do with this?. This is a war of ideologies over the extent to which government should have control of your life. Health care is simply the current battlefield.

You can support this mandate all you want and twist the constitution into thinking it grants government the power to make people do things so you can have your precious health care. Just don't come pissing and moaning when they start making you do things you think aren't so fair. Because then you're not gonna have a legal leg to stand on.

nobody who makes a decent living likes this time of year, specifically because of taxes.

this isn't about people defending the mandate, bern. it is about your baseless (though passionate) argument that the constitution has the power to prevent it. you furthermore argue as if the founding fathers had consensus on the size and power of central government. the fact is you can do anything in god's or the founder's names, and the intent of the founders is not the exclusive basis by which we do, or should, review issues at hand. they were heroes, but enlightenment, merchantilist heroes of pre-industrial america.

Conservatives don't have a problem with taxes as long as they are within reason. Problem is we passed the point of reason a long time ago.

with regard to that, one can only argue that reagan's early 50%premium rate taxes and clintons late 39% taxes produced any equilibrium between intake and outlay - fiscal conservatism. i think we may have passed the point of reason in the opposite direction of what you've got in mind. gotta be a big boy to realize that, and our personal culpability in, again, voting ourselves tax relief and entitlement at the same time. while you might think the conservative suit fits you, 'tax-cut conservatism' is not real conservatism at all. you are balking at one of the lowest tax rates of the last 80yrs.

 

[Bern80]

Obviously the Founders didn't want totally free people...they obviously, right after they revolted from taxation without representation, gave Congress the ability to tax. See, it's not so evil. And it doesnt mean "teh enhd of Freeeedoooommm!!one one"

I think I said as much last post.

I'm not twisting the constitution. I know how to read it. I've spent years reading it, learning from scholars how to interpret it, and putting that knowledge into practice. In fact, I make a living out of it. And you know what, smarter people than me interpreted the Commerce Clause exactly this way...as an expansion on the powers of the legislature.

Then you of course undetstand it is the document that GRANTS power to the federal government? The Commerce clause has NEVER been interpreted such that it grants the federal government the authority to make you purchase something. Have you not noticed that the government hasn't required you to purchase anything prior to this?

This is NOT about the size of government. That's a pure partisan-hack talking point.

Why is it not about the size of government? There is nothing partisan about wanting less government in my life. Have you not noticed that STILL in 13 pages of debate no one can answer the original question? WHAT IS THE GOD DAMN POINT OF A CONSTITUTION WITH RILES FOR GOVERNMENT IF ALL GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO IS TAX YOU IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT THEY TELL YOU TO?

 

[antagon]

bern, that you dont want to hear sense is not the same as not having it set before you. you're juggling obtuse and stupid such that its hard to tell which one you've got in your hand.

 

[Bern80]

this only underscores my point with the constitution. you cant look to it for the answers to everything. it was not intended to be the law of the land in itself. we have the U.S.C. for that (@the fed lvl). taxes are part of that code. furthermore, with your murder, the crime is independent of the punishment and each could be vetted against the rights of the convicted independently. if the crime were posting on a messageboard, that would present a constitutional violation would it not?... or if your murderer did not get convicted in accord with his rights. likewise, the punishment would have to undergo its own scrutiny. like you said, you couldn't stone him even if that's how he killed his victim.

It most certainly was intended to be the law of the land. The law of the land as far as the federal government is concerned anyway. If the constitution isn't what prevent tyranny, what does? Are you getting the theme yet? No one can answer the question I've asked because everyone keeps going back to what government CAN do rather than coming up with what they CAN'T. Probably because the later is a lot harder if you believe mandating what people must purchase is constitutional.

What argument based in constitutionality could you then make against government making you do anything it feels like making you do.

there isnt enough direct analogy between the murderer and a healthcare deadbeat. there's no crime, nor punishment, per sa. to argue the bill on a constitutional basis, you'd have to shave far closer than that, i'd say.

You have to be able to separate your rationale from the subject matter. I am simply applying the rationale to another scenarios. Your interpretation renders the mandate in of itself irrelevant. I am trying to get you to see beyond the subject matter. To do that you have to apply your logic to other scenarios. And the logic has been that the penalty for violation of the law is what make the law constitutional.

 

[Bern80]

bern, that you dont want to hear sense is not the same as not having it set before you. you're juggling obtuse and stupid such that its hard to tell which one you've got in your hand.

At the very least you are the pot calling the kettle black. Resorting to ad hominems is rarely a good debate strategy.