Head to head debate

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I dont quite know who youre calling legion but I am Southern Chicken(been registered as Southern Chicken for some time now)....As I stated above I see this as an angle for the Government's argument. As far as your "force you to buy counter".......Why not? What part of the constitution prohibits it? Note, I'm not asking if it's an enumerated power - it isn't, in my opinion, but I'm asking what in the constitution prohibits it? For instance, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from passing a law infringing upon freedom of speech. Yes, all powers not enumerated are reserved to the States and the people respectively, but I don't think you could argue that the 10th Amendment was intended to invalidate the Necessary and Proper Clause which does allow the government to enact laws that go beyond the enumerated powers in certain circumstances. However, Congress can't use the Necessary and Proper Clause to do something that is prohibited by the Constitution. So, I ask you again... where does it prohibit this?

States require drivers to enter into a contract for auto insurance even if they are unwilling. If the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the government - in the limited manner that the Clause allows - to do things that the States might otherwise be able to do - and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case, then if the States can require that a citizen be an unwilling participant to a contract, why can't the Federal government do so in this instance?

the automobile analogy is false. you don't have to buy the insurance if you don't own a car. additionally, that is a state constitutional issue, not a federal necessary and proper clause issue.

using your logic, the necessary and proper clause gives the government unlimited power over your life. it can force you to buy a gym membership, force you to buy movies, because if you don't, the movie industry will be harmed, and the government has a legitimate interest in having a healthy movie industry....why have a constitution at all then? you would have us believe that the US constitution gave government unlimited power over your life. that is the anti thesis to the rationale behind the document, which is in reality a document that LIMITS government power.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

there is NO economic activity here. the option to NOT buy a service or product is NOT economic activity. not placing yourself into the stream of commerce cannot be called "activity".....in your world, the choice to not buy something is economic activity....well....the auto market is not doing so well because people aren't buying enough cars, so now the government can force you to buy a car because you economic INactivity effects economic activity.....insane logic....once again, you get it wrong.

Oh no, you tried to read without mommy being there...

WHAT don't you understand about these pasasges?

Justice Scalia spelled out in exquisite detail how the necessary and proper clause gives Congress power to do whatever is necessary to make a broader statutory scheme work - whether or not the specific means employed would be, standing alone, valid under the commerce clause. In that opinion he wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scalia approvingly quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision that limited commerce clause authority: "Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court [Rehnquist] nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."

In regards to your absurd right wing paranoia, you can fashion a foil hat out of aluminum foil...or spandex...LOL!!![/QUOTE]


apparently you're too stupid to understand what you're copying and pasting.....do you not notice the word ACTIVITY? not buying insurance is not an economic activity. good lord, you need to take the time and try to understand exactly what you're posting, because its clear you dont' have a clue.

my response in bold, the quotes are screwed up

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So Yurt, what prohibits the Federal Government from creating this mandate in furtherance of the legitimate ends under the Commerce Clause?


Keeping in mind that 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.

uh, no it doesn't....the laws must RELATE to the enumerated powers, the clause only gives congress the ability to create laws that help it carry out the congress's enumerated powers. you need to reread mcculloch...and a new case, comstock....the law must be rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power. see comstock

 

[Southern Chicken]

the automobile analogy is false. you don't have to buy the insurance if you don't own a car. additionally, that is a state constitutional issue, not a federal necessary and proper clause issue.

using your logic, the necessary and proper clause gives the government unlimited power over your life. it can force you to buy a gym membership, force you to buy movies, because if you don't, the movie industry will be harmed, and the government has a legitimate interest in having a healthy movie industry....why have a constitution at all then? you would have us believe that the US constitution gave government unlimited power over your life. that is the anti thesis to the rationale behind the document, which is in reality a document that LIMITS government power.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court had this to say about the above: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=282&invol=716

So again I ask you .........what prohibits the Federal Government from creating this mandate in furtherance of the legitimate ends?


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.

 

[Southern Chicken]

uh, no it doesn't....the laws must RELATE to the enumerated powers, the clause only gives congress the ability to create laws that help it carry out the congress's enumerated powers. you need to reread mcculloch...and a new case, comstock....the law must be rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power. see comstock

The 10th Amendment states who has all these powers that aren't enumerated in the Constitution, but the 10th Amendment is not what limits the Federal Government to the enumerated powers. Please see my link in my above post

 

[Cancel9]

Google Yurtard's catchphrase du jour - Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance? even if you do not own a car?
and you'll see where he's getting his talking points to parrot.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court had this to say about the above: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=282&invol=716

So again I ask you .........what prohibits the Federal Government from creating this mandate in furtherance of the legitimate ends?


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.

what does the case say? do you even know? quote the part you think supports your assertion.

you fail to understand mcculloch and you need to read comstock. you're advocating a government with UNLIMITED powers, that is the exact opposite reason why we created a constitution, because we sought to LIMIT the government's power. it cannot just wildly go beyond the enumerated powers because it must be rationally RELATED to an enumerated power.

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

UNITED STATES v. GRAYDON EARL COMSTOCK, Jr., et al.

Decided May 17, 2010

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Google Yurtard's catchphrase du jour - Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance? even if you do not own a car?
and you'll see where he's getting his talking points to parrot.

sorry liar, i haven't actually googled that. i have though been using that argument since this issue came up last year. pity for you that your stalking has caused you to go insane.

and actually, i did just google it and MY thread came up first....LOL

 

[Southern Chicken]

the automobile analogy is false. you don't have to buy the insurance if you don't own a car. additionally, that is a state constitutional issue, not a federal necessary and proper clause issue.

No, if Congress is attempting to enact a law outside constitutional authority, it is attempting to use a power reserved to the States or the people. So, when doing so under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is perfectly logical to look to what the States do in determining whether that act is reasonable. States can require a private citizen to enter into a contract with a private entity and can penalize them for not doing so. So, as far as using a power reserved to the States is concerned, this appears to be one of them.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The 10th Amendment states who has all these powers that aren't enumerated in the Constitution, but the 10th Amendment is not what limits the Federal Government to the enumerated powers. Please see my link in my above post

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

 

[Cancel9]

sorry liar, i haven't actually googled that. i have though been using that argument since this issue came up last year. pity for you that your stalking has caused you to go insane.

and actually, i did just google it and MY thread came up first....LOL

So you lied.

Have you ever had an original thought, Yurtard?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

the automobile analogy is false. you don't have to buy the insurance if you don't own a car. additionally, that is a state constitutional issue, not a federal necessary and proper clause issue.

No, if Congress is attempting to enact a law outside constitutional authority, it is attempting to use a power reserved to the States or the people. So, when doing so under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is perfectly logical to look to what the States do in determining whether that act is reasonable. States can require a private citizen to enter into a contract with a private entity and can penalize them for not doing so. So, as far as using a power reserved to the States is concerned, this appears to be one of them.

the fact you cut out the rest of my argument shows me you haven't a clue what you're talking about. you had to ignore that in order to make a point, because if you acknowledge it, your entire argument is destroyed.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So you lied.

Have you ever had an original thought, Yurtard?

i didn't lie, i googled it after i typed that do you have consider getting a life and not stalking people and pining for people you meet on political messageboards? why don't you go to a homosexual dating board.

thanks

 

[DamnYankee]

Among those who have joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions on which Judge Roger Vinson's decision rests, are Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. They will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional.

You have no original thought, and no shame, plagiarist.

Among those who have joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions on which Judge Roger Vinson's decision rests, are Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. They will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional.

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1699634.html

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You have no original thought, and no shame, plagiarist.

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1699634.html

lol....busted!

 

[Southern Chicken]

you fail to understand mcculloch and you need to read comstock. you're advocating a government with UNLIMITED powers, that is the exact opposite reason why we created a constitution, because we sought to LIMIT the government's power. it cannot just wildly go beyond the enumerated powers because it must be rationally RELATED to an enumerated power.

you've yet to show anything in the Constitution that clearly prohibits the Federal Government from doing this. You say it's not within the scope of it's authority; I say it is when you consider the Necessary and Proper Clause

OH and here is another interesting thing to note:
"Where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce," - which here would be the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, "'it possesses every power necessary to make that regulation effective.'" - Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v. Raich.


.Regulating the cost of healthcare is within the scope of constitutional authority as is protecting citizens from discriminatory practices by insurance companies

 

[DamnYankee]

lol....busted!

Second time I caught him in this thread. I'll bet he's done more.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

you've yet to show anything in the Constitution that clearly prohibits the Federal Government from doing this. You say it's not within the scope of it's authority; I say it is when you consider the Necessary and Proper Clause

OH and here is another interesting thing to note:
"Where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce," - which here would be the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, "'it possesses every power necessary to make that regulation effective.'" - Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v. Raich.


.Regulating the cost of healthcare is within the scope of constitutional authority as is protecting citizens from discriminatory practices by insurance companies

you're just going in circles. i've shown that forcing you to buy health insurance is not rationally related to any enumerated power. you keep cutting that out of my responses and running away from it. your position is that the clause is UNLIMITED, it is not. i've given you case to support my position. you cite a case that i don't see how it supports your contention and you refuse, after repeatedly being asked, to quote the section you think supports your stance.

you're comparing apples/oranges when talking about regulating insurance with regards to pre-existing conditions. that is an economic activity that falls under the commerce clause, thus, congress can create a law about pre-existing conditions because it is rationally related to an enumerated power. forcing you to buy a product or service is NOT in any enumerated power, let alone rationally related to any enumerated power. you want the government to be UNLIMITED, and thankfully scotus and people with common sense say you're wrong.

The Constitution delegates limited powersto the National Government

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh no, you tried to read without mommy being there...

WHAT don't you understand about these pasasges?

Justice Scalia spelled out in exquisite detail how the necessary and proper clause gives Congress power to do whatever is necessary to make a broader statutory scheme work - whether or not the specific means employed would be, standing alone, valid under the commerce clause. In that opinion he wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scalia approvingly quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision that limited commerce clause authority: "Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court [Rehnquist] nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."

In regards to your absurd right wing paranoia, you can fashion a foil hat out of aluminum foil...or spandex...LOL!!!

apparently you're too stupid to understand what you're copying and pasting.....do you not notice the word ACTIVITY? not buying insurance is not an economic activity. good lord, you need to take the time and try to understand exactly what you're posting, because its clear you dont' have a clue.

my response in bold, the quotes are screwed up

Did you grow up under power lines? Wait 'till mommy comes home, then ask her to explain what Justice Scalia quoting Chief Justice Rehnquist means.

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

If you are riding in your car seat, and mommy has an accident, and the two of you are unconscious, the men in the ambulance will begin your economic ACTIVITY...involuntarily.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Did you grow up under power lines? Wait 'till mommy comes home, then ask her to explain what Justice Scalia quoting Chief Justice Rehnquist means.

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

If you are riding in your car seat, and mommy has an accident, and the two of you are unconscious, the men in the ambulance will begin your economic ACTIVITY...involuntarily.

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.