SmarterthanYou
rebel
i've seen numerous state constitutions that are similar in ideology to the US constitution, but nowhere have I seen one where they are given power to mandate purchase of any product, regardless of using public property or not.
Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
i've seen numerous state constitutions that are similar in ideology to the US constitution, but nowhere have I seen one where they are given power to mandate purchase of any product, regardless of using public property or not.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I'm questioning that, yes. i'd like someone to show me where a state derives that power from, and not from some bullshit court opinion.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so you think our third branch of government is bullshit? do you want to get rid of it? and just have the legislative and executive branch?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so if a law is not in a constitution, it holds no authority?
Clear as mud. Nonsense but quite clear.
Good Luck
New member
The point, for those incapable of thinking beyond the donkey's ass in which their head is entombed, is that the federal government can NOT force people to purchase automotive liability insurance. Therefore all the mindless twits who keep on about mandated health insurance is constitutional because people are forced to purchase liability insurance are talking out of that same ass they keep their heads inside. There is a HUGE difference between state government authority and federal government authority. State governments have the constitutional authority to do ANYTHING that is not specifically forbidden them by the Constitution (or their own state constitution, of course). Conversely, the federal government can ONLY exercise that authority enumerated by the Constitution. Anything else is forbidden.
The authority to mandate purchase of products or services is NOT an authority granted the federal government, even under the most heinous misinterpretation of the commerce clause. But when it comes to state government, no one (so far) can show the Constitutional right which would be violated, nor the Constitutional limit on state government, that would forbid state governments from mandating the purchase of products or services. Unless that limit is found in a state constitution, states DO have that authority as far as I can tell.
There are other examples, such as the 55 MPH speed limit. Contrary to the beliefs of some, that was NOT a federal law. What it WAS, was the several states submitting in one degree or the other to federal fiscal blackmail with federal highway funding. The federal government used the threat of withdrawing federal highway dollars from states that did not pass 55 mph highway speed limit laws. But they were, in the end STATE laws, because only the states have the authority to set speed limits on their highways.
Hence STATE laws requiring liability insurance are valid, whereas the same mandate from the federal government is not. Using state liability insurance laws to defend a federal health insurance mandate simply proves the ignorance of those using that argument.
The authority to mandate purchase of products or services is NOT an authority granted the federal government, even under the most heinous misinterpretation of the commerce clause. But when it comes to state government, no one (so far) can show the Constitutional right which would be violated, nor the Constitutional limit on state government, that would forbid state governments from mandating the purchase of products or services. Unless that limit is found in a state constitution, states DO have that authority as far as I can tell.
There are other examples, such as the 55 MPH speed limit. Contrary to the beliefs of some, that was NOT a federal law. What it WAS, was the several states submitting in one degree or the other to federal fiscal blackmail with federal highway funding. The federal government used the threat of withdrawing federal highway dollars from states that did not pass 55 mph highway speed limit laws. But they were, in the end STATE laws, because only the states have the authority to set speed limits on their highways.
Hence STATE laws requiring liability insurance are valid, whereas the same mandate from the federal government is not. Using state liability insurance laws to defend a federal health insurance mandate simply proves the ignorance of those using that argument.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you are the only one who doesn't get it....says alot about you
i notice you're incapable of answering a question, is this because you're still confused? i will post the question again, just let me know which part you don't understand. i've worked with the mentally disabled, i can work with you, don't be nervous.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
huh? you don't see why not....then you say....probably not
are you saying you think they have the power to do so, but probably won't?
I answered the question the other day. The answer is still the same. I don't know whether it is constitutional or not. I doubt that it is. The supremes will decide, and then we will all know.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
we can get in to this philosophical argument again, if you'd like, but you know what i'm saying. do you agree with every court opinion out there? has the court obviously gone with ideology over the supreme law of the land?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i see, said the blind man to the deaf dog....
you then believe the fed government can force you to auto insurance if you drive a car, but probably not if you don't own a car.
what constitutional authority does the federal government have to force you to buy health insurance?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if a law has no basis on prescribed constitutional powers, then i believe it holds no authority.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i posed the question because you said you would not accept authority from a court, the judicial branch. i think it was a fair question and i really don't know what you're saying when you ask for authority, but you will not accept authority from one of our branches of government.
i do not agree with every court opinion. judge, justices, are human, flawed, imperfect....and more importantly, so are their law clerks. the president is not perfect, the congress is not perfect and the US constitution is not perfect. so why is it you won't accept authority from a court opinion?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what about jay walking? littering?
I guess I have to change my answer. I don't think the government cannot force you to buy car insurance, but it could penalize you for not doing so. Same thing for health insurance. You don't have to buy it, but if you choose not to you are penalized. And I believe the powers derive from the commerce clause, the taxing power and the necessary and proper clause.
The thing is that the dipshit asshats decided to enact a screwfuck plan rather than just saying everyone was eligible for Medicare and increasing taxes accordingly.
Edit: And I like "I see, said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I can accept authority from a court opinion, if it is based in the confines of the supreme law of the land. For instance, before Heller, I knew that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right. Had the USSC decided otherwise, i'm not accepting that authority because it's violative of the constitution.
Good Luck
New member
If you do not see why not, you need to actually READ our Constitution sometime. The power of the federal governments is specified. Forcing the purchase of goods or services by the citizenry is NOT a power granted to the federal government.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there is not power in the federal constitution to prohibit those. Those laws are based in state constitutions and i'm sure that there would be a prescribed power to prohibit those actions. For instance, the TX state constitution gives the state authority to regulate the rules of the road, so prohibiting jaywalking would be within that constitutional power.