Head to head debate

Yurt said:
where did i ever say the 10th amendment limits the federal goverment? you need to quote what in that case supports your assertion, because scotus says you're wrong.

The Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in fur-therance of its constitutionally enumerated powers. It makes clear that grants of specific federal legislative authority are accompanied by broad power to enact laws that are “convenient, or useful” or “con-ducive” to the enumerated power’s “beneficial exercise,”

...

First, the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congressbroad authority to enact federal legislation. Nearly 200years ago, this Court stated that the Federal “[G]overn-ment is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers,” McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 405, which means that “[e]very law enacted by Congress must be based on one ormore of” those powers, United States v. Morrison, 529
U. S. 598, 607 (2000).

...

The Court concludes that, when determining whetherCongress has the authority to enact a specific law underthe Necessary and Proper Clause, we look “to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumeratedpower.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf
Click to expand...

And it goes on to say--
(holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce . . . among the several States"

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez








WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT IT WASNT RATIONALLY RELATED(GOOD TRY THOUGH)

MY ASSERTION IS THAT The government could argue that insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions does substantially impact interstate commerce.

The current plan, as it relates to the mandate, is intended to reduce the cost of health care and eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Discrimination against patients and the cost of healthcare both can be legitimately regulated by Congress.

Considering those aims, how is that regulation effective without the mandate? These ends are definitely within the scope of Congress' Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause

Again: The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Federal Government to enact laws that go beyond the enumerated powers if it is essential to achieving a legitimate end.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
that is NOT interstate economic activity....and that does nothing to dispel that fact, plagiarizer, that NOT buying something is NOT economic activity. your example is a state issue, not a federal issue. additionally, the ambulance sends you a BILL. so you actually pay for that service. so thanks again for showing that the mandate to force you to buy insurance is unconstitutional.

:)
Click to expand...

The current plan, as it relates to the mandate, is intended to reduce the cost of health care and eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. These ends are definitely within the scope of Congress' Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause.
 
Yurt said:
that is NOT interstate economic activity....and that does nothing to dispel that fact, plagiarizer, that NOT buying something is NOT economic activity. your example is a state issue, not a federal issue. additionally, the ambulance sends you a BILL. so you actually pay for that service. so thanks again for showing that the mandate to force you to buy insurance is unconstitutional.

:)
Click to expand...

Yeah but Health insurance is regulated by the States only to the extent that the Federal Government allows it to be regulated by the States via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act
 
Wow; I was reading through this thread, and I actually got so embarassed for Yurt that I had to stop.

I don't think that's ever happened before.
 
Southern Chicken said:
And it goes on to say--
(holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce . . . among the several States"

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez








WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT IT WASNT RATIONALLY RELATED(GOOD TRY THOUGH)

MY ASSERTION IS THAT The government could argue that insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions does substantially impact interstate commerce.

The current plan, as it relates to the mandate, is intended to reduce the cost of health care and eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Discrimination against patients and the cost of healthcare both can be legitimately regulated by Congress.

Considering those aims, how is that regulation effective without the mandate? These ends are definitely within the scope of Congress' Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause

Again: The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Federal Government to enact laws that go beyond the enumerated powers if it is essential to achieving a legitimate end.
Click to expand...

your whole stance is that it doesn't have to be related. that congress can make ANY law with unlimited scope and reach. the whole time you've been arguing that the federal government is unlimited, that the necessary and proper clause grants them unlimited power to do anything that is necessary and proper. that is false.

it must rationally relate to an enumerated power. there is no enumerated power that grants congress the ability to force to you enter the stream of commerce. your argument about the prior conditions has been dealt with, i already agreed that such a law is likely to pass constitutional muster as it involves commerce and congress can regulate the insurance INDUSTRY - not an individual NOT engaged in interestate commerce.
 
Onceler said:
Wow; I was reading through this thread, and I actually got so embarassed for Yurt that I had to stop.

I don't think that's ever happened before.
Click to expand...

this is why i ignore virtually all your posts. you just come in and attack. you don't have courage to actually make a position, much easier to be a pussy and throw peanuts from your little gallery. what is so embarrassing about my position onceler? two federal judges agree with my position. but yet, you simply proclaim its embarrassing while being to chickenshit to explain why. its because you can't debate, the majority of your posts are one liner insults and then you run away from the thread topic.

you're spineless punk
 
Yurt said:
this is why i ignore virtually all your posts. you just come in and attack. you don't have courage to actually make a position, much easier to be a pussy and throw peanuts from your little gallery. what is so embarrassing about my position onceler? two federal judges agree with my position. but yet, you simply proclaim its embarrassing while being to chickenshit to explain why. its because you can't debate, the majority of your posts are one liner insults and then you run away from the thread topic.

you're spineless punk
Click to expand...

Wow! What a total whining hissy fit! LOL!!!

I wasn't "attacking," you whining hissy fitter; I was just making an observation. I was truly embarassed for you, just reading your posts & the way you were getting trounced.

I didn't realize you'd get so crazed about it. I'll lay off next time....
 
Yurt said:
i also called you a plagiarizer and i was wrong, i did not realize that those words were a link, it doesn't show on the screen as a link.
Click to expand...

There is more than one way to provide a link. I prefer to title my links most of the time. This site does not automatically underline embedded links. Other sites do.
 
Onceler said:
Wow! What a total whining hissy fit! LOL!!!

I wasn't "attacking," you whining hissy fitter; I was just making an observation. I was truly embarassed for you, just reading your posts & the way you were getting trounced.

I didn't realize you'd get so crazed about it. I'll lay off next time....
Click to expand...

so the spineless punk can't actually explain why my position is so embarrassing....

thats what i thought you little wimp
 
Onceler said:
:lol:

I've gotta admit, it's really fun watching you completely melt down...
Click to expand...

still don't have the courage to debate huh....no surprise, at least bfgrn has the courage to debate, you....nah, insults are easy, actually having to defend your position is much harder and you obviously cannot do so, so stick with your personal attacks and whining onceler, you're really gifted in that department

:)
 
Yurt said:
still don't have the courage to debate huh....no surprise, at least bfgrn has the courage to debate, you....nah, insults are easy, actually having to defend your position is much harder and you obviously cannot do so, so stick with your personal attacks and whining onceler, you're really gifted in that department

:)
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not insulting. Just calling things as I see 'em.

I can't help it if your skin is paper thin. What a whiner....

LOL
 
Onceler said:
Again, I'm not insulting. Just calling things as I see 'em.

I can't help it if your skin is paper thin. What a whiner....

LOL
Click to expand...

so asking you to explain your position, is whining?

asking you to debate is whining?

wow....just amazing. why do you even come on just plain politics? perhaps you should find a board that is - just plain insults - because its clear you can't discuss politics
 
Yurt said:
your whole stance is that it doesn't have to be related. that congress can make ANY law with unlimited scope and reach. the whole time you've been arguing that the federal government is unlimited, that the necessary and proper clause grants them unlimited power to do anything that is necessary and proper. that is false.

it must rationally relate to an enumerated power. there is no enumerated power that grants congress the ability to force to you enter the stream of commerce. your argument about the prior conditions has been dealt with, i already agreed that such a law is likely to pass constitutional muster as it involves commerce and congress can regulate the insurance INDUSTRY - not an individual NOT engaged in interestate commerce.
Click to expand...

Then the problem youre having is with reading comprehension. I have not stated that "congress can make ANY law with UNLIMITED Scope and reach".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top