Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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.

ok, then you agree that someone must interpret the constitution. i'm with you, the 2nd Am is clearly an individual right, however, it is open to interpretation as it is ambiguous.

what i take from what you saying is, you will only accept a court's opinion if yhou agree with it....is this correct?

 

[apple0154]

actually, thats a good point.

so far no one has been able to articulate why they believe the h/c bill is constitutional....

Allow me. Let's say someone has a family member who has an illness that is life threatening and they are unable to afford medical treatment and/or medication. I'm sure there are a few folks who would steal or even kill under those circumstances.

The preamble to the Constitution mentions "general welfare". Whether one interprets that to mean the general welfare of individuals or the welfare of society as a whole you'll notice countries with little or no social policies have high rates of crime.

Why do you think tourists are advised to remain in the vicinity of resorts when vacationing in Central America or Caribbean countries?

 

[Bonestorm]

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.

Of course, this ignores that very early on the federal government forced males to purchase firearms and taxed sailors to pay for their healthcare. In both instances, citizens were involuntarily forced to purchase goods and services. Now, of course it's possible that the federal government very quickly overstepped its constitutional bounds, but I doubt it.



Edit: And I'm quite familiar with the Constitution and have read it many times. We just disagree as to its meaning, as reasonable people can.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

NigelTufnel;769418]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.

penalize is the same as forcing, it is coercion. you don't have to not kill people, but if you do, you're imprisoned or get the death penalty. you don't have to obey the law, but if you don't....well....

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.

we are, amazingly, in agreement. i have no idea why they didn't just expand medicare and then fix that program. enacting a whole new program was stupid and reduntant when we already have medicare.

Edit: And I like "I see, said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw."

i like that one

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

TE=apple0154;769424]Allow me. Let's say someone has a family member who has an illness that is life threatening and they are unable to afford medical treatment and/or medication. I'm sure there are a few folks who would steal or even kill under those circumstances.

apple...there are people who will steal or kill just to get more money, goods etc....should we then require everyone to be a billionaire?

The preamble to the Constitution mentions "general welfare". Whether one interprets that to mean the general welfare of individuals or the welfare of society as a whole you'll notice countries with little or no social policies have high rates of crime.

what?

Why do you think tourists are advised to remain in the vicinity of resorts when vacationing in Central America or Caribbean countries?

i have no idea.

 

[Good Luck]

Allow me. Let's say someone has a family member who has an illness that is life threatening and they are unable to afford medical treatment and/or medication. I'm sure there are a few folks who would steal or even kill under those circumstances.

The preamble to the Constitution mentions "general welfare". Whether one interprets that to mean the general welfare of individuals or the welfare of society as a whole you'll notice countries with little or no social policies have high rates of crime.

Why do you think tourists are advised to remain in the vicinity of resorts when vacationing in Central America or Caribbean countries?

Just because the Constitution mentions general welfare does not give the government carte blanche to do whatever THEY think is "necessary" to that goal. The Constitution also mentions domestic tranquility. Does that mean they should have the power to quash dissent in case it threatens our domestic tranquility?

The powers of the federal government were specified within the Constitution, with the added admonishment of the 10th Amendment stating that those are ALL the powers the federal government has. Those enumerated powers were structured KNOWING that one of the purposes of setting up our Constitutional republic was the PROMOTION of general welfare, as the limits emplaced on the federal government to those powers enumerated were done with the knowledge that ANOTHER purpose of the Constitution is to secure the blessings of liberty to US, their posterity.

 

[Good Luck]

Of course, this ignores that very early on the federal government forced males to purchase firearms and taxed sailors to pay for their healthcare. In both instances, citizens were involuntarily forced to purchase goods and services. Now, of course it's possible that the federal government very quickly overstepped its constitutional bounds, but I doubt it.



Edit: And I'm quite familiar with the Constitution and have read it many times. We just disagree as to its meaning, as reasonable people can.

Fine. If you have read it, and are so familiar with it, perhaps you can specify which clause gives the federal government the power to force people to purchase any good or service.

And, as you readily admit, historical actions do not automatically make an act constitutional. The feds were in the wrong when they forced people to purchase firearms. Since they no longer do it, it's a moot point.

Taxing people to provide a federal service to those under the direct authority of the federal government (ie: people serving in the U.S. armed forces) is an entirely different kettle of fish, and has zero bearing on the question at hand.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Allow me. Let's say someone has a family member who has an illness that is life threatening and they are unable to afford medical treatment and/or medication. I'm sure there are a few folks who would steal or even kill under those circumstances.

The preamble to the Constitution mentions "general welfare". Whether one interprets that to mean the general welfare of individuals or the welfare of society as a whole you'll notice countries with little or no social policies have high rates of crime.

Why do you think tourists are advised to remain in the vicinity of resorts when vacationing in Central America or Caribbean countries?

You'll also note that the preamble prescribes no powers what so ever to government.

 

[Bonestorm]

Fine. If you have read it, and are so familiar with it, perhaps you can specify which clause gives the federal government the power to force people to purchase any good or service.

I've already so specified and clarified my position. I believe the federal government has such authority pursuant to the commerce clause, the taxing power and the necessary and proper clause.

And, as you readily admit, historical actions do not automatically make an act constitutional. The feds were in the wrong when they forced people to purchase firearms. Since they no longer do it, it's a moot point.

No, it isn't a moot point. The actions of the very first Congress can tell us a lot about how the framers viewed the authority of the federal government.

Taxing people to provide a federal service to those under the direct authority of the federal government (ie: people serving in the U.S. armed forces) is an entirely different kettle of fish, and has zero bearing on the question at hand.

So why'd you bring it up?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

ok, then you agree that someone must interpret the constitution.

No, you read his statements wrong. The Constitution needs no 'interpretation'. Laws may be interpreted as to whether or not they fall within the bounds of the constitution.

 

[tinfoil]

Nigel is a GED internet lawyer. LOL what a dumbass.

 

[Good Luck]

I've already so specified and clarified my position. I believe the federal government has such authority pursuant to the commerce clause, the taxing power and the necessary and proper clause.

So you are one of those morons who believes "regulate interstate commerce" means they can do whatever the hell they want to do as long as money is attached? It's moronic.

No, it isn't a moot point. The actions of the very first Congress can tell us a lot about how the framers viewed the authority of the federal government.

How many in the first Congress were also involved in writing the Constitution they operated under?

So why'd you bring it up?

YOU brought it up. Did you forget what you wrote less than an hour ago?

"and taxed sailors to pay for their health care".
You tried to use that as an example of the federal government forcing someone to purchase something. It is, of course, NOT an example since they TAXED them and then used those revenues to provide health care. You know, like TAXING people then providing them Medicare? (As opposed to simply telling them "Hey, people, we're going to pass a bunch of laws that will raise the hell out of insurance premiums, and YOU have to buy it.")

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, you read his statements wrong. The Constitution needs no 'interpretation'. Laws may be interpreted as to whether or not they fall within the bounds of the constitution.

doesn't that requires interpretation? who interprets the constitution? you, the executive branch, the legislative branch or the judicial branch? or none of the above, which ultimately, leaves us with you.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I've already so specified and clarified my position. I believe the federal government has such authority pursuant to the commerce clause, the taxing power and the necessary and proper clause.




No, it isn't a moot point. The actions of the very first Congress can tell us a lot about how the framers viewed the authority of the federal government.




So why'd you bring it up?

yet you think penalizing someone does not force them

 

[SmarterthanYou]

ok, then you agree that someone must interpret the constitution. i'm with you, the 2nd Am is clearly an individual right, however, it is open to interpretation as it is ambiguous.

what i take from what you saying is, you will only accept a court's opinion if yhou agree with it....is this correct?

the constitution doesn't need to be interpreted. it is written in plain text and very clear, just like there is no ambiguity in the second amendment. 'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear and concise.

and yes, what i'm saying is that i'll only accept a courts opinion if i agree with it's constitutionality. marbury v madison and all that.

 

[Schadenfreude]

but only if you choose to drive a car...

the analogy isn't perfect, but i don't see where the federal government can force you to buy a product, even if you don't use it. i think h/c should be a state issue, like auto insurance. the federal government forced merchant mariners to buy h/c, but they also chose to work in that profession. and maritime laws are under federal jurisdiction. so using that analogy falls flat

imo

any way you look at it, it will wind up in the courts and finally at scotus

the results will be interesting and sure to anger a large group of people

ps, i am on the side of the feds

 

[Schadenfreude]

the constitution doesn't need to be interpreted. it is written in plain text and very clear, just like there is no ambiguity in the second amendment. 'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear and concise.

and yes, what i'm saying is that i'll only accept a courts opinion if i agree with it's constitutionality. marbury v madison and all that.

a bit of an anarchist are you

oth, i do not agree with several things that the courts have handed down

 

[Schadenfreude]

actually, thats a good point.

so far no one has been able to articulate why they believe the h/c bill is constitutional....

i will leave that to the lawyers

however, the commerce clause has been interpreted to cover a wide range things

think of it this way, emergency rooms are provided by counties, uninsured users are a burden on counties, therefore a burden on states and users that cross state lines to use another states emergency rooms

already laws are being passed to charge out of area users of emergency response (principally auto accidents for now) for use

 

[apple0154]

Just because the Constitution mentions general welfare does not give the government carte blanche to do whatever THEY think is "necessary" to that goal. The Constitution also mentions domestic tranquility. Does that mean they should have the power to quash dissent in case it threatens our domestic tranquility?

Of course. Obama said exactly that regarding Egypt, yesterday. Government has an obligation to protect the citizens.

The powers of the federal government were specified within the Constitution, with the added admonishment of the 10th Amendment stating that those are ALL the powers the federal government has. Those enumerated powers were structured KNOWING that one of the purposes of setting up our Constitutional republic was the PROMOTION of general welfare, as the limits emplaced on the federal government to those powers enumerated were done with the knowledge that ANOTHER purpose of the Constitution is to secure the blessings of liberty to US, their posterity.

The Preamble sets out the purpose/reason for the Constitution. "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" Is needless suffering the "Blessings of Liberty"? Is premature death looking after the "general welfare" of citizens when a solution is available?

What can be more basic than the health of the citizens? If government is not going to be concerned about the lives of the citizens what is the purpose of government?

 

[apple0154]

You'll also note that the preamble prescribes no powers what so ever to government.

No powers? It tells us the function of government. The purpose. It's role.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Ordain: to enact or establish by law

What "powers" did the Founding Fathers have? They had the power of having won the war for independence so they had the power to insist the government "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty", etc.