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

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The power for Obamacare comes from Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the Constitution. Same place the power to create Social Security came from.

So you're invoking the general welfare clause? Then show us your proof that obozocare will in fact provide for the general welfare. Most americans think it will bankrupt us.

Show us your proof.

 

[regent]

[
The power for Obamacare comes from Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the Constitution. Same place the power to create Social Security came from.

So you're invoking the general welfare clause? Then show us your proof that obozocare will in fact provide for the general welfare. Most americans think it will bankrupt us.

Show us your proof.

I didn't invoke any clause nor do I have to show any proof. Obamacare is an act made by the Congress and approved by the Court. It is now the law of the land and passed under the clause I mentioned. I have not checked with most Americans to see if it will bankrupt us, but I do remember Social Security being mentioned as bankrupting us and then leading us to socialism and then to communism.

 

[dcraelin]

by saying that the mandate was ...at some times, for some purposes, (when we want it to be) a tax

the Supreme Idiots were admitting that it passed thru Congress based on a lie. No legislation based on a court confirmed lie should be allowed to stand in a Democracy/Republic

 

[Contumacious]

Obamacare is an act made by the Congress

Incorrect. ADOPTED by the SENATE **********ONLY**********

and approved by the Court.

The Court merely ruled that the ACA could stand as a tax but not pursuant to the commerce clause.

Now the issue before the court will be : Is the REVENUE act constitutional since the ACA did not originate in the house?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the constitution provides for the supreme court to decide on constitutional questions

thats the law

HAHAHAHA. You incredibly ignorant jackass. The constitution says NO SUCH THING!!! The constitution does not directly say who has the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws. So by the tenth amendment it would appear the states do.

you are a legal ignoramus and the board laughingstock!!!

So by your reasoning a state could in fact ban all private gun ownership, outright, and the citizens of that state would have no recourse at the federal level to get that law declared unconstitutional?

Okay...

 

[RKMBrown]

the constitution provides for the supreme court to decide on constitutional questions

thats the law

HAHAHAHA. You incredibly ignorant jackass. The constitution says NO SUCH THING!!! The constitution does not directly say who has the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws. So by the tenth amendment it would appear the states do.

you are a legal ignoramus and the board laughingstock!!!

So by your reasoning a state could in fact ban all private gun ownership, outright, and the citizens of that state would have no recourse at the federal level to get that law declared unconstitutional?

Okay...

Prior to the 14th amendment yes, subsequent to the 14th amendment no.

 

[itfitzme]

[
The power for Obamacare comes from Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the Constitution. Same place the power to create Social Security came from.

So you're invoking the general welfare clause? Then show us your proof that obozocare will in fact provide for the general welfare. Most americans think it will bankrupt us.

Show us your proof.

Demonstrate how it will "bankrupt us".

 

[PrometheusBound]

the constitution provides for the supreme court to decide on constitutional questions

thats the law

the supreme court ruled obama care did not violate the constitution

failing to agree with the high court is treason

In Marbury v. Madison, the SCROTUS arbitrarily interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. This logical fallacy enabled a power play by the last of the Federalists, who had always wanted to establish an oligarchy of the economic elite but had been voted out of legislative existence by the American people because of the high-handed ways of Hamilton and Adams. If judicial review had been in the Constitution, the Court would have been exercising its tyranny over legislation from the very beginning instead of waiting 12 years to usurp power. I agree with publicly financed health services, but it is dangerous to our freedom to praise the SCROTUS for anything it does. It is an anti-democratic tribunal and must be stripped of its self-granted power to veto laws passed by the people or the people's elected representatives.

Nope, I'm not seeing it.

Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Article III simply specifies a supreme court, that it has judiciary powers, and the extent of those judiciary powers.

If, in fact, the Supreme Courts judiciary powers is to interpret the law, then it is logically consistent that it has the judiciary power to interpret the Constitution.

Law can be written with such specificity as to make no interpretation possible. They aren't.

How did they go 12 years without having a Constitutional case? Surely, Adams's Sedition Act was questionable, if not a certain violation of the First Amendment. Why did they have to assert their power in Marbury v. Madison if they already had that power? The Constitution says they can try cases, not laws, no more than an individual can plead "guilty, not guilty, or 'the law I'm being tried on is against a higher law.'" Why wouldn't a city judge be able to declare the defendant innocent because the ordinance violates the city charter? "Arising under the Constitution" also refers to cases, not laws, as far as judgment goes. That is, judging whether the case fits the law, not whether the law fits the Constitution. That is for Congress and the President to judge by voting or veto.

The most important thing is that anyone who supports this overlord is slavish and unAmerican.

 

[itfitzme]

In Marbury v. Madison, the SCROTUS arbitrarily interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. This logical fallacy enabled a power play by the last of the Federalists, who had always wanted to establish an oligarchy of the economic elite but had been voted out of legislative existence by the American people because of the high-handed ways of Hamilton and Adams. If judicial review had been in the Constitution, the Court would have been exercising its tyranny over legislation from the very beginning instead of waiting 12 years to usurp power. I agree with publicly financed health services, but it is dangerous to our freedom to praise the SCROTUS for anything it does. It is an anti-democratic tribunal and must be stripped of its self-granted power to veto laws passed by the people or the people's elected representatives.

Nope, I'm not seeing it.

Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Article III simply specifies a supreme court, that it has judiciary powers, and the extent of those judiciary powers.

If, in fact, the Supreme Courts judiciary powers is to interpret the law, then it is logically consistent that it has the judiciary power to interpret the Constitution.

Law can be written with such specificity as to make no interpretation possible. They aren't.

How did they go 12 years without having a Constitutional case? Surely, Adams's Sedition Act was questionable, if not a certain violation of the First Amendment. Why did they have to assert their power in Marbury v. Madison if they already had that power? The Constitution says they can try cases, not laws, no more than an individual can plead "guilty, not guilty, or 'the law I'm being tried on is against a higher law.'" Why wouldn't a city judge be able to declare the defendant innocent because the ordinance violates the city charter? "Arising under the Constitution" also refers to cases, not laws, as far as judgment goes. That is, judging whether the case fits the law, not whether the law fits the Constitution. That is for Congress and the President to judge by voting or veto.

The most important thing is that anyone who supports this overlord is slavish and unAmerican.

Simply, a case cannot be tried without interpretation of the law.

 

[hazlnut]

From the Enumerated Powers in Section 8

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

AND


From the Implied Powers which derive from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution and permit Congress "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." And of the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power to regulate commerce, in rulings such as McCulloch v Maryland, have effectively widened the scope of Congress' legislative authority far beyond that prescribed in Section 8.

 

[PrometheusBound]

So your complaint isn't about the poor at all? It's about some people having more money than others and wanting to right that wrong? Isn't that communism?

no it;s equality.

And therein lies the problem. There is no "equality" from you parasites. While people like Steve Jobs put in 18 hour days to earn their billions, asshat parasites like you lay around getting stoned and playing Xbox all day while demanding you are entitled to things.

When are we going to see EQUALITY of effort from Dumbocrats? When are we going to see EQUALITY of talent from Dumbocrats? When are we going to see EQUALITY of results from Dumbocrats [MENTION=42294]Snookie[/MENTION]?

When you people get off your lazy asses and start working as hard as I do, I'll make sure you get economic "equality". Until then, suck it you lazy little bitches!

So you're a workoholic freak who needs therapy. You think that gives you the right to take it out on others who aren't obsessed with their bank accounts like you are? What products or services do you create to deserve your loot? Is the economy benefiting from turning you loose on the public? Do you really deserve your reward or are you an economic thug? The crooks at Enron also worked hard all their lives; it just made them bitter and addicted to getting money any way they could to make up for the zombie hollowness inside them.

As for Jobs, he was just a parasite living off the techies who created his products. He didn't even know how to program. Besides, you prove you have a low IQ with your braindead analogy that you would think people are asking to be rewarded as much as Jobs was. People with such lack of logic, believing they make a point with such a strawman, are incapable of making money honestly. Only the intelligent are useful, not ambitious imbeciles like you've proved yourself to be. Your vicious ranting nastiness indicates that you are an anti-social crook. You don't earn money; you onlymake money, just like counterfeiters.
money; you only

 

[itfitzme]

So your complaint isn't about the poor at all? It's about some people having more money than others and wanting to right that wrong? Isn't that communism?

no it;s equality.

And therein lies the problem. There is no "equality" from you parasites. While people like Steve Jobs put in 18 hour days to earn their billions, asshat parasites like you lay around getting stoned and playing Xbox all day while demanding you are entitled to things.

When are we going to see EQUALITY of effort from Dumbocrats? When are we going to see EQUALITY of talent from Dumbocrats? When are we going to see EQUALITY of results from Dumbocrats [MENTION=42294]Snookie[/MENTION]?

When you people get off your lazy asses and start working as hard as I do, I'll make sure you get economic "equality". Until then, suck it you lazy little bitches!

Dude, you have serious issues. You might consider getting therapy and studying economics because your emotions have you making up completely meaningless fantasies. Seriously...

 

[regent]

by saying that the mandate was ...at some times, for some purposes, (when we want it to be) a tax

the Supreme Idiots were admitting that it passed thru Congress based on a lie. No legislation based on a court confirmed lie should be allowed to stand in a Democracy/Republic

It was judged by the Court to be constitutional under Clause one, the rest is immaterial. If the Congress had claimed it to be constitutional under another clause or clauses and the Court said no but it is Constitutional under clause one, then it is constitutional.
But you raise a good question: does Congress have to declare the clause or clauses of Section Eight when they create a law? Even, if Congress did have to declare a clause, which I doubt, the law would still be constitutional if the Court says it is.
As Justice Hughes said the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The power for Obamacare comes from Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the Constitution. Same place the power to create Social Security came from.

So you're invoking the general welfare clause? Then show us your proof that obozocare will in fact provide for the general welfare. Most americans think it will bankrupt us.

Show us your proof.

I didn't invoke any clause nor do I have to show any proof. .

Yes you do have to show proof. You're the one demanding we go beyond the listed powers of congress. Now justify your demand.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
So by your reasoning a state could in fact ban all private gun ownership, outright, and the citizens of that state would have no recourse at the federal level to get that law declared unconstitutional?

Okay...

And by your "reasoning" the feds could ban all gun ownership and the citizens would have no recoourse at the state level.!!! Read the constitution, you numbskull. The states are supposed to be above the feds.

 

[Contumacious]

by saying that the mandate was ...at some times, for some purposes, (when we want it to be) a tax

the Supreme Idiots were admitting that it passed thru Congress based on a lie. No legislation based on a court confirmed lie should be allowed to stand in a Democracy/Republic

It was judged by the Court to be constitutional under Clause one, the rest is immaterial.

Yo Dingle Berry,

The ACA was adopted and defended under the COMMERCE CLAUSE.

Why are you so eager to defend it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
It was judged by the Court to be constitutional under Clause one,

Hey stupid. Where does the constitution give the courts final say on whether a law is constitutional or not?

 

[Snookie]

[
The power for Obamacare comes from Article one, Section eight, Clause one of the Constitution. Same place the power to create Social Security came from.

So you're invoking the general welfare clause? Then show us your proof that obozocare will in fact provide for the general welfare. Most americans think it will bankrupt us.

Show us your proof.

if you show me yours, then I'll show you mine.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Yo Dingle Berry,

The ACA was adopted and defended under the COMMERCE CLAUSE.

Why are you so eager to defend it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Which is equally absurd. Health care is NOT commerce. The states need to stand up and tell the feds we will not accept how the feds interpret the constitution to give themselves power over everything.

Shortly after the ACA was passed there was lots of talk from the states about nullifying it. Sadly, you don't hear that anymore.

 

[Snookie]

[
It was judged by the Court to be constitutional under Clause one,

Hey stupid. Where does the constitution give the courts final say on whether a law is constitutional or not?

This maay be a bit prolix for a moron like you. RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute