apple0154
MEOW
If the scotus is considerate they'll render their decision during a season where the ambient temperature is comfortable to accommodate the folks who will be taking it to the street.
Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
If the scotus is considerate they'll render their decision during a season where the ambient temperature is comfortable to accommodate the folks who will be taking it to the street.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Good Luck
New member
But NOT at the cost of liberty. You can protect a person by tossing them in solitary confinement and feeding them trough a slot in the door, treating carefully any illness that crops up, even give them cable TV. Perfect safety. What you utopian dreamers cannot seem to understand is that liberty demands a certain level of risk.
So slavery to government in exchange for perceived safety is liberty? Here is where you fail: your assumption that government control is the ONLY solution to ANY social problem you care to name. Government, government, government. Pretty soon government controls everything, and there is no liberty left, but gee whiz, we're SAFE!
You vastly over expand the role of government in the lives of the people. Government's role is to protect the people from those who would do them harm. It is NOT government's role to protect the people from the vagaries of life itself. Where does individual responsibility come in, in your government-does-it-all world? Also, where does the fact fit, in your ignorant dreams of utopia, that those who seek power in government, no matter WHAT laws you want written, are invariably seeking government power for their own purpose?
Clue: the REAL reason for the Constitution, preamble aside, is those who sought to more unify the states into a functional republic knew that the power of a federal government would invariably corrupt itself. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yet you seek to give government absolute power.
Government regulations in health care cause huge increases in costs while society looks at medical mistakes as a pathway to wealth, and when the system gets fucked due to these two factors, somehow government take over (when government interference is a huge factor in health care having problems in the first place) is the ONLY solution. You big government liberals are so narrow minded, your brains disappear when viewed from the edge. It's worse than the tax-cut mantra of the republican party. At least they cannot claim tax cuts as a solution to non-economic problems. But to you, government is the solution to every damned problem we face. You'd give away everything in seeking your utopian dream of perfect safety.
It is sheer idiocy born in the drug induced hallucinations of some impossible utopia.
Cancel9
Banned
It's called "trolling", and nobody does it like Yurtsie!
Good Luck
New member
Repeating your garbage does not make it true. Yes, the preamble describes the basic purpose, but not of GOVERNMENT, you ignorant historically disabled twit. The preamble does NOT say: "In order to (do a whole bunch of stuff) we do establish and ordain the federal government..." does it? The preamble describes the purpose of the CONSTITUTION itself.
You keep ignoring one basic fact: while the preamble describes WHY they are writing the Constitution, the REST of it describes HOW those goals are to be achieved. Preamble says "this is what we want to do". The rest says "this is how we will do it". And the HOW is a specified structure that purposely LIMITS the powers of the federal government. The ENTIRE DOCUMENT is about limiting the federal government to specified powers over the states and the people.
General welfare is far more than your narrow-minded economic based definitions. General welfare INCLUDES being protected from a government gaining TOO MUCH POWER over our everyday lives. The preamble describes the reason for the Constitution, while the rest states, in essence, that the WAY to those goals is by LIMITING GOVERNMENT to specifically defined powers.
Based Chad
Was it me?
General welfare also includes making a trade policy that doesnt impoverish the nation while benefitting a few globalist traitors.
Your neocon brainwash only accepts a government that destroys a populace based on dishonest "free market" rhetoric. All markets are manipulated. There is no "free market". This is part of your zionist olam ha ba elitist internationalist fascist new world order illuminati programming.
Last edited:
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
The Constitution shouldn't really need interpretation. It's REALLY SIMPLE to read. But I'll concede with you on it.
Good Luck
New member
The point has been openly and carefully explained more than once, but to reiterate, the powers of state and federal government are DIFFERENT, therefore defending a federal law mandating the purchase of health insurance by equating it to the STATE power to require liability insurance does not work.
If you and Dune are too fucking ignorant to grasp the point, that is not the fault of anyone except yourself. Pull your heads out of the donkeys ass and get a little oxygen flowing to the globs of sludge you twits laughingly call a brain.
Cancel9
Banned
ObamaCare is already destined for a SCOTUS showdown.
Until the Court rules, make all the noise you want. That's all it'll be. Noise.
Here's something that may enlighten you. There are a lot of big words, but if you need help, just ask.
"Judge Vinson could have issued an injunction against the law immediately upon his ruling. Knowing that the verdict was going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, he allowed the law to remain in effect pending appeal. This is a clear example of a judge refusing to exercise the entire scope of his power.
Another reason Judge Vinson should be considered a model of restraint is that while he rejected the entire Obamacare law, he actually upheld a Medicare rule in support of the Obama administration. The same plaintiffs trying to repeal Obamacare went after the Obama Medicare rules. This would normally be considered a split decision except that the rejection of the healthcare mandate carried greater importance. Nevertheless, a reactionary right-wing Judge hades-bent on sticking it to Mr Obama would not have ruled in favor of his administration on a key Medicare ruling."
http://communities.washingtontimes....11/feb/4/obamacare-declared-unconstitutional/
Until the Court rules, make all the noise you want. That's all it'll be. Noise.
Here's something that may enlighten you. There are a lot of big words, but if you need help, just ask.
"Judge Vinson could have issued an injunction against the law immediately upon his ruling. Knowing that the verdict was going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, he allowed the law to remain in effect pending appeal. This is a clear example of a judge refusing to exercise the entire scope of his power.
Another reason Judge Vinson should be considered a model of restraint is that while he rejected the entire Obamacare law, he actually upheld a Medicare rule in support of the Obama administration. The same plaintiffs trying to repeal Obamacare went after the Obama Medicare rules. This would normally be considered a split decision except that the rejection of the healthcare mandate carried greater importance. Nevertheless, a reactionary right-wing Judge hades-bent on sticking it to Mr Obama would not have ruled in favor of his administration on a key Medicare ruling."
http://communities.washingtontimes....11/feb/4/obamacare-declared-unconstitutional/
The Constitution doesn't actually say that. And no, I don't think they can do whatever the hell they want to do as long as money is attached. I think they can do a lot of things though.
I never counted.
The law I mentioned does not fit your previous description. Merchant sailors were not under the direct authority of the United States of America (like soldiers).
But I guess you agree with me that Congress can use the taxing power to penalize people for not obtaining health insurance. I see no meaningful distinction between the federal government taking 20 cents worth of wages in to provide health care to all sailors regardless of whether the individual being taxed utilizes the health care services and penalizing a person 20 cents if they fail to obtain health insurance.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
Can you possibly be any more dramatic?
We're talking about health insurance here. To want people to have health insurance and offer to help them purchase it, if need be, is hardly a loss of liberty.
Again, I ask, what liberty is lost by purchasing health insurance? Virtually everyone will require medical care at some point in their life and who knows when an illness or accident will occur?
As for government being the answer there has been sufficient time for private enterprise or individual persons to deal with every social problem that has arisen. Unfortunately, charities and other private initiatives, while doing good, do not and can not deal with problems the way governments can. We know that because they haven't.
When applied to medical care the citizens in every country which implemented a medical plan insist on keeping it. They all know it's better than the "pay or suffer" systems they previously had. No exceptions and we're talking about dozens of countries, large and small, rich and poor.
Why wouldn't the government want to try and protect people from the vagaries of life? That is what community has been all about since the beginning of time; helping one another. That is what has resulted in progress; working together.
I don't understand your concern regarding those seeking power for their own purpose. Appointments to government are determined by the people and terms are rather short considering ones lifespan. The rules can be changed every four years if that's what the people desire.
Granted, some will take advantage of situations, however, on the whole the benefit to society far outweighs the errant individual.
We must have differing definitions of "absolute power". Surely insisting one have medical insurance is not absolute power. There is no obligation to use the insurance. No one is forced to obtain medical services. What can possibly be considered corrupting about having medical insurance when we have 50 or more years of numerous examples of other countries doing similar?
As I've asked many times show my one country where government medical has been revoked. Show me one country where there is a legitimate opposition to government medical. Just one example.
It has nothing to do with utopia. The "pay or suffer" system is a failure. Not one country that switched to a government plan reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one. Literally dozens of countries and not one.
Coincidence? Sheer luck? A fluke? Or proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, general welfare does include much more than economics. When thinking about a person's welfare what comes to mind ahead of health? When one asks, "How are you?" are they asking how much money you make? Where you went on vacation? Is your boss a decent person? How big is your house? Or are they asking about your general health? How you are feeling?
And before we forget do tell how a government offering medical services means they have too much control over a person's life. With dozens of countries having government medical I've never heard of anyone being forced to have medical services performed on them so can you expand on this whacked out idea of "TOO MUCH POWER"? To what are you referring when using the term "too much power"?
Good Luck
New member
Which is exactly why trying to lump the mandated purchase of health insurance under the interstate commerce clause is a load of shit.
Then how can you make the blanket claim that their actions reflect the intent of those who were involved with the Constitutional Convention?
(hint: the percentage of congress critters who were also a part of the Convention was not large.)
Actually, at that time, they were. Not in the exact way that soldiers were, but definitely under federal rule.
The difference is the federal government DOES have the enumerated power to lay taxes, AND has the enumerated power to spend said taxes for specified purposes. They HAVE to power to tell me: "you pay $X in taxes" and then turn around and use those taxes to buy health insurance. (although I find the hypocrisy on the extreme side that YOU of all people, screaming for years about taxing the rich more, would describe taxing as "penalizing" when it serves your purpose. Hilarious.)
They do NOT have the power to tell me to buy something directly, nor congruently, penalize me for not doing so. That is not a tax, it is a fine. The commerce clause does NOT cover that power - not to mention the powers granted under the commerce clause have already abused the power to an extent that would make people like Jefferson walk up and puke in your shirt pocket.
In the end, as far as results are concerned, the difference may be not be apparent - IF you ignore the method and ONLY focus on the results. But HOW one arrives at a specified goal is as important as getting there in the first place. (ie: the end does NOT justify the means.)
But, if there is, according to you, no practical difference, why not support that method which is clearly constitutional (ie: lay taxes and spend them on the health care problem) instead of supporting a means that is unconstitutional?
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
Yes, those are definitely examples of overuse, if not outright abuse, of federal power. They are not, however, the only examples - not by a LONG shot!
Yes, a practice bagan under Clinton, continued under Bush, and legally increased under Obama~
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2723/stories/20101119272305500.htm
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Well it's nice to see you "strict constitutionists" finally admit you turned a blind eye and just plain ignored the enforcement of those practices during the Bush years.