Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[antique4xpu]

liberalism: ideas so good they have to be forced on other people

did nelson mandella say this when he freed the slaves in south africa?

 

[Snookie]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

SCOTUS is a joke. It got passed because it WAS NOT a tax. Then those clowns on the bench ignored that fact and said it was. This whole political and judicial system is corrupt.

There is that. We were told all along it wasn't a tax. When it was argued in front of the Supremes, they were told it wasn't a tax. John Roberts, **** be upon him, somehow decides it really is a tax.

Obama and Friends are what they are, but John Roberts sold the whole country out because he was worried about the historical view of the court. **** John Roberts.

Roberts is a conservative appointed by bush. He even believes cororations are people.

So, quit your pitiful whining. You reap what you sow,

Pkease respect the rule if law as espoused by the clintion inpeachmnent gang,

 

[dblack]

SCOTUS is a joke. It got passed because it WAS NOT a tax. Then those clowns on the bench ignored that fact and said it was. This whole political and judicial system is corrupt.

There is that. We were told all along it wasn't a tax. When it was argued in front of the Supremes, they were told it wasn't a tax. John Roberts, **** be upon him, somehow decides it really is a tax.

Obama and Friends are what they are, but John Roberts sold the whole country out because he was worried about the historical view of the court. **** John Roberts.

Roberts is a conservative appointed by bush. He even believes cororations are people.

So, quit your pitiful whining. You reap what you sow,

Pkease respect the rule if law as espoused by the clintion inpeachmnent gang,

You don't seem to get what the 'rule of law' concept is all about. It doesn't mean "obey the law", it means government that applies to universal rules, based by the democratic process and applied equally to all, as opposed to government that gives everyone a different deal depending on their political influence. Programs like ACA are the opposite of rule of law. They are rule by regulatory regime, where rules are decided on an ad-hoc basis by appointed bureaucrats rather than via the legislative process.

 

[emilynghiem]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

???

The last check on the judiciary is the people, or else we would have a theocracy where whatever these 9 human judges believe should be law impose their beliefs on others regardless of their beliefs to the contrary. Sorry, I already knew there was not enough check on legal and judicial abuse, and too many cases of conflicting interest prove it more.

A. Trickery: the Court passed it based on arguments "it was a tax" but Congress passed it based on arguments it was NOT a tax or it would not have passed.
They expected the Court to overrule it later. But the definitions got switched.
Had it been SET UP as a tax (which requires writing it differently) then it would NOT have passed Congress.
And had it NOT been "interpreted as tax" then it would NOT have gotten past the Court.

[If you have a pet dog FIDO, and draw him as a PIG to enter in a contest to draw your pet PIG, then turn around and draw him as a CAT to enter in a CAT drawing contest,
you can still win both contests, but you have committed fraud because your pet dog was not truly qualified as either a pig or a cat as the contests required, even though you presented him that way.]

B. why are Judge Roberts and other politicians who support it not under this bill but exempted from it? if it's so universally beneficial, why don't all people subscribe to it FREELY

People who read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Code of Ethics for Govt Service,
LIKE and RESPOND to how these are written and respect to follow them and enforce them

Luddly if you and others support it so much, why don't you pay for it yourselves?
Why this insistence to make opponents pay for it? Why not prove it works first
so people have free choice to participate? Why are you so afraid of free choice?

By the spirit of the Constitution, if people/parties "do not consent" to a contract, then it is not legally binding by natural laws.
A social contract, including the Constitution itself, derives its authority from "consent of the governed."
That is the basis of law and government -- human free will with respect to justice and peace, law and order in society.
Otherwise, you have 'taxation without representation' which is 'tyranny.'

C. How many other court rulings imposed a politically biased decision in violation of ethics?
1. the contested KELO case that gave corporations excuses to use an increased tax revenue for private business as a reason for govt to take private property by eminent domain
2. the contested decision to sway the election of George Bush which many still protest
to this day as politically biased
3. the court based "spiritual/religious" decision to end the life of Terri Schiavo without any written proof of her personal directive (thus making it a faith-based decision which the govt is NOT supposed to interfere in), although her guardian/exhusband had a clear conflict of interest, and the majority of her family wanted to take over care for her but were denied

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[ Programs like ACA are the opposite of rule of law. They are rule by regulatory regime, where rules are decided on an ad-hoc basis by appointed bureaucrats rather than via the legislative process.

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are " All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Thus all laws written by bureaucrats are unconstitutional, but if you tell that to a court, you will be told to shut up.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The last check on the judiciary is the people,

HUH??? Federal judges are NOT elected. They are appointed for life and are free to do whatever. The people do not check them. No one does.

 

[emilynghiem]

liberalism: ideas so good they have to be forced on other people

by people who claim 'separation of church and state'
when Christians have ideas so good they want to share with everyone!

P.S. regarding freeing South African slaves politically
The Christians teach spiritual healing which frees people permanently
from physical and mental diseases including spiritual addictions that have no cure.
Yet this cannot be imposed on people, even though it would prevent
all the conflicts and waste over prisons, health care and mental health costs
for systems that fail to cure and correct the root problem. When the solutions are FREE.

So here, liberal secularists want taxpayers to pay for all the messes after the fact,
but push "separation of church and state" to DISCRIMINATE and censor
knowledge of spiritual healing that would cure social problems instead of placating symptoms

 

[emilynghiem]

The last check on the judiciary is the people,

HUH??? Federal judges are NOT elected. They are appointed for life and are free to do whatever. The people do not check them. No one does.

We HAVE to check their DECISIONS.
Are you going to let ANY HUMAN BEING rule over you like a GOD?

Any human being would only accept an adverse decision if they either
agree with it, have some other way to compensate for it,
or have another way to check it and correct it.

It would violate separation of church and state if any judge sitting on a bench
could rule on interpretation of law WITHOUT PEOPLE'S FREE CHOICE TO FOLLOW.
You would have DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

 

[RKMBrown]

SCOTUS is a joke. It got passed because it WAS NOT a tax. Then those clowns on the bench ignored that fact and said it was. This whole political and judicial system is corrupt.

There is that. We were told all along it wasn't a tax. When it was argued in front of the Supremes, they were told it wasn't a tax. John Roberts, **** be upon him, somehow decides it really is a tax.

Obama and Friends are what they are, but John Roberts sold the whole country out because he was worried about the historical view of the court. **** John Roberts.

Roberts is a conservative appointed by bush. He even believes cororations are people.

So, quit your pitiful whining. You reap what you sow,

Pkease respect the rule if law as espoused by the clintion inpeachmnent gang,

Look it's shnook, the lying troll.

 

[PhineasTBluster]

The U.S. Constitution does not give Congress or the Executive Branch the power to force anyone to purchase a product, unless failing to do so would harm someone else. ACA is a joke, it is a train wreck barreling down the tracks. It will fail on it's own, just give it time.

 

[EriktheRed]

From a guy wingnuts love to hate....

Dear GOP,

For a crowd that loves to bray about the Constitution, it seems you have misplaced your copy. How else to explain your bizarre efforts to destroy the world unless you get your way?

You don't like the Affordable Care Act. You've made it obvious. But it was passed the correct way, in a Congress that generally doesn't pass shit. It made it through the House, and it made it through the Senate. It wasn't passed in the "dead of night", nor was it "rammed down" anyone's throat like you jokers like to claim. It passed only after an excruciating 14-months of debate and negotiations. But all your hysterical shrieking about death panels and communism couldn't stop it. Finally, the president signed it into law.

Us liberals weren't thrilled when it passed. Just relieved. We didn't get anything near what we wanted. After all, we're not in the business of fighting for Heritage Foundation-created ideas championed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and first adopted by Republican governors (the guy you nominated, in fact!). If we couldn't get single payer, we at least wanted a public option—an expansion of Medicare for all. But alas, we went to D.C. with the Congress we had, not the one we wanted. And really, given the dysfunction in D.C., it's amazing we got anything at all.

So now that the law is about to be fully implemented, you're still not happy. You're still shrieking about death panels and communism, and even the death of freedom! Yeah, yeah, we get it. The 42 (or whatever) votes in the House to repeal Obamacare have made it very clear.

But here's the thing: If you want to truly get rid of the law, you have to do it the proper way, as specified in that Constitution you pretend to cherish. Those House votes? Those are a good start! Great job! You're a third of the way there. Because you still have to get that bill passed by the Senate. And then, you have to get the president to sign it. And if the president doesn't sign it, then you have to overturn that veto which requires a two-thirds majority, which you don't have even in the House.

So what are your options? Certainly not shut down the government and threaten a national default on our debt. That's not in that Constitution (seriously, read it!). Your options are to win some elections. Hold that ill-gotten gerrymandered-fueled majority in the House. Get a simple majority in the Senate and then get rid of the filibuster. Seriously, get rid of it. I won't complain. Then win the presidency. You'll have a better shot at that if you don't nominate Ted Cruz, and you might want to broaden your appeal by being less of a bunch of assholes. But really do what you must. I'm not in the habit of giving you guys advice. Just anvils.

What I do want to do is remind you that there's a right way to get rid of laws, and the undemocratic, extra-constitutional way you are trying to do it now.

If you really truly believe that America is behind you, then you're golden. 2014 and 2016 will bear that out and you'll have all the governmental control you'll need to repeal to your heart's content. So put your trust on that American public you so fervently believe is behind you and let the chips fall where they may.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

 

[Snookie]

The U.S. Constitution does not give Congress or the Executive Branch the power to force anyone to purchase a product, unless failing to do so would harm someone else. ACA is a joke, it is a train wreck barreling down the tracks. It will fail on it's own, just give it time.

The supreme court ruled it was a tax, which is legal. Ha, ha.

 

[Snookie]

From a guy wingnuts love to hate....

Dear GOP,

For a crowd that loves to bray about the Constitution, it seems you have misplaced your copy. How else to explain your bizarre efforts to destroy the world unless you get your way?

You don't like the Affordable Care Act. You've made it obvious. But it was passed the correct way, in a Congress that generally doesn't pass shit. It made it through the House, and it made it through the Senate. It wasn't passed in the "dead of night", nor was it "rammed down" anyone's throat like you jokers like to claim. It passed only after an excruciating 14-months of debate and negotiations. But all your hysterical shrieking about death panels and communism couldn't stop it. Finally, the president signed it into law.

Us liberals weren't thrilled when it passed. Just relieved. We didn't get anything near what we wanted. After all, we're not in the business of fighting for Heritage Foundation-created ideas championed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and first adopted by Republican governors (the guy you nominated, in fact!). If we couldn't get single payer, we at least wanted a public option—an expansion of Medicare for all. But alas, we went to D.C. with the Congress we had, not the one we wanted. And really, given the dysfunction in D.C., it's amazing we got anything at all.

So now that the law is about to be fully implemented, you're still not happy. You're still shrieking about death panels and communism, and even the death of freedom! Yeah, yeah, we get it. The 42 (or whatever) votes in the House to repeal Obamacare have made it very clear.

But here's the thing: If you want to truly get rid of the law, you have to do it the proper way, as specified in that Constitution you pretend to cherish. Those House votes? Those are a good start! Great job! You're a third of the way there. Because you still have to get that bill passed by the Senate. And then, you have to get the president to sign it. And if the president doesn't sign it, then you have to overturn that veto which requires a two-thirds majority, which you don't have even in the House.

So what are your options? Certainly not shut down the government and threaten a national default on our debt. That's not in that Constitution (seriously, read it!). Your options are to win some elections. Hold that ill-gotten gerrymandered-fueled majority in the House. Get a simple majority in the Senate and then get rid of the filibuster. Seriously, get rid of it. I won't complain. Then win the presidency. You'll have a better shot at that if you don't nominate Ted Cruz, and you might want to broaden your appeal by being less of a bunch of assholes. But really do what you must. I'm not in the habit of giving you guys advice. Just anvils.

What I do want to do is remind you that there's a right way to get rid of laws, and the undemocratic, extra-constitutional way you are trying to do it now.

If you really truly believe that America is behind you, then you're golden. 2014 and 2016 will bear that out and you'll have all the governmental control you'll need to repeal to your heart's content. So put your trust on that American public you so fervently believe is behind you and let the chips fall where they may.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

I think the people you are talking to prefer pitchforks to govern.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says it's all a big conspiracy...

... an' the only ones gonna benefit...

... is the insurance companies dat gonna make money off'n it...

... so's dey can donate to the Democratic election coffers...

... dat passed the law so's the insurance companies can make money off o' it...

... an' den the Democrats get elected.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[]The supreme court ruled it was a tax, which is legal. Ha, ha.

You don't even understand the issue. Tax or not, congress cannot do things unless it's one of their powers listed in the constitution.

think

 

[Snookie]

[]The supreme court ruled it was a tax, which is legal. Ha, ha.

You don't even understand the issue. Tax or not, congress cannot do things unless it's one of their powers listed in the constitution.

think

The power to tax is enumerated in the constitution.

 

[P@triot]

[]The supreme court ruled it was a tax, which is legal. Ha, ha.

You don't even understand the issue. Tax or not, congress cannot do things unless it's one of their powers listed in the constitution.

think

The power to tax is enumerated in the constitution.

So by that logic you just lost your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. All I have to do is create a law repealing those freedoms, call them a "tax", and I'm golden!

When you tell me I must purchase a good or service - that is not a tax. A tax is money taken to run one of the governments 18 enumerated powers. It is NOT controlling an action and it is NOT taking money for socialism which Congress does not have authority for in the first place. You people are profound ****'n morons who try to twist and pervert EVERYTHING for your own sick, lazy, parasite agenda and it is going to bite you in your miserable ass one day when you no longer have any freedoms left [MENTION=42294]Snookie[/MENTION].

 

[DGS49]

The point is, the Feds cannot compel you to purchase this insurance; but they can TAX you if you don't. You have the choice not to purchase, and if you are young and single and otherwise healthy and uncovered, it is to your benefit to decline to purchase the Obamacare insurance from the exchanges (which includes coverages you don't want or need), and purchase private insurance that gives you ONLY the catastrophic coverage you want to have. The total of the TAX and the private insurance premium (usually about $1,000/yr) is less than the premium you would pay for insurance within the Obamacare world.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the Tenth Amendment has been repealed by the Supreme Court.

In effect.

 

[dblack]

So by that logic you just lost your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. All I have to do is create a law repealing those freedoms, call them a "tax", and I'm golden! ...

Unfortunately, that's where we're at, yeah. The view that the Constitution limits the federal government to only its enumerated powers is a minority view and not upheld by the Court. To change that fact, we're probably going to need one or more amendments clarifying (or re-clarifying) limited government principles.

The only thing left limiting federal power is the rapidly eroding list of stipulations in the Bill of Rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

So by that logic you just lost your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. All I have to do is create a law repealing those freedoms, call them a "tax", and I'm golden! ...

Unfortunately, that's where we're at, yeah. The view that the Constitution limits the federal government to only its enumerated powers is a minority view and not upheld by the Court. To change that fact, we're probably going to need one or more amendments clarifying (or re-clarifying) limited government principles.

The only thing left limiting federal power is the rapidly eroding list of stipulations in the Bill of Rights.

The bill of rights were super-ceded by the 14th due process clause in combination with the 16th income tax amendment. In combination there are no rights that can't be taken away. The combination of giving up our rights with due process and giving government the power to enslave the people through excessive taxation, will be the end of our nation.

The 17th tyranny amendment solidified that the tyranny of the majority would rule DC to accelerate the process of burning the nation down so the 51% can sit on their asses at the expense of the 49%.