# One more time: Explaining to Progressives why ACA Mandates were Unconstitutional



## emilynghiem (Jan 11, 2021)

And one more time, educating fellow progressives on why the ACA mandates were unconstitutional. 
========================================
To fellow Progressives on why ACA was unconstitutional: 

1. ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties) It is disputed for this reason, that it wasn't the same bill passed through both Congress and Courts, where the Judicial branch does NOT have legislative authority to "rewrite" a public health bill as a tax bill in order to rule in favor. However contesting this issue requires a Constitutional Convention due to the clashing beliefs exceeding the jurisdiction of both federal govt and courts because political beliefs belong to the people 

2. Note to Progressives: the political belief in right to health care, like right to life applying to unborn, belongs to the people. A Constitutional Amendment is required to expand the jurisdiction and duties of federal govt to apply right to health care and right to life on a national scale. Otherwise establishing beliefs of one group over others discriminates by creed and violates equal Civil Rights and Constitutional protections. 

As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care. Obama, Pelosi and Roberts committed overreach and violated Constitutional protections by establishing a mandate that violated and discriminated against a whole class of people of Constitutional beliefs violated by bypassing an Amendment and abusing Congress and Courts to pass a hybrid bill that didn't follow Constitutional process and limits. 

Consequently because ACA didn't meet Constitutional standards of representation, key provisions were struck down later as unconstitutional. Not just the birth control requirements, but the funding conflicts later reimbursed back to states, and the unconstitutional expenditures by Obama that failed to go through Congress. 

Thus, ACA was unconstitutional on several levels: in spirit, by the letter of the law where it failed to follow the literal legislative and judicial process, and in the execution. 

Sorry: You can believe it was legal but so was Slavery ruled as legal under property laws enforced by Courts. Courts were not the place to prove Slavery violated rights. The people had to establish that first, before govt and laws reflected and represented the people.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 11, 2021)

REPLY to comment by Darrell Thomas "At minimum the SCOTUS should have sent it back to the House.  Instead, acknowledging it was improperly passed, they decided to do nothing about it.  Lifetime appointment was to separate the Courts from political motivation; however, politics seem to constantly be considered."

==========

What I learned about the political differences is it isn't always a choice that people can change if that is how their brains or spiritual purpose is designed. [Note: Even studies have shown a physical difference between brains of Conservative thinkers and Liberals.]

The two schools of thought:
(a) that govt is either SUPPOSED to serve as a central authority for providing for the public welfare and managing equal access for everyone; 
(b) or that PEOPLE are supposed to manage our own resources democratically, reserved first to people and then to states, and agree only to assign specific duties to federal govt by limited rules, and not abuse either courts or legislation or other govt process to impose or regulate more than what was agreed to in writing.

We have always had this split, similar to Protestant that believes people have direct authority through Christ to live by the laws and run our own churches VS. Catholic that only recognize the central authority as in charge of official church policy. These beliefs are a choice for  people to follow, but internally people cannot be forced to change what they believe and respond to. Likewise, with political beliefs, instead of attacking or rejecting people for their choices, why not recognize the different groups and let them govern themselves without conflict or imposition on each other? 

Why not treat Parties equally as Political Religions and Religious Organizations and not allow such beliefs to be imposed through govt to discriminate or infringe on equal beliefs of other groups. 

We never have addressed this issue of Political Beliefs but have used the given system to vote one position over others by majority. 

Now we have outgrown that system and no longer consent to have half the nation ruled by the party beliefs of the other. The last two elections have shown that people do not consent to the beliefs of the other school. I hope this means we are ready for a Constitutional Convention to reach a consensus on how to manage the two main branches of political uses of govt, and separate them so people can fund and follow the policies they believe in while allowing others to exercise their equal freedom. 

We would not allow Hindus and Muslims to abuse majority rule in Congress or judicial rule in Courts to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation by lobbying and coercion. When we start treating Parties with the same respect as Religious groups, then we might fulfill our Constitutional promises of equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 11, 2021)

I thought it was also. We lost the argument. It's why the argument that I need to care about the Supreme Court holds no sway any longer where it's concerning who I vote for.


----------



## Votto (Jan 11, 2021)

The Constitution?  When have the democrats been held to the Constitution?

When have they shown in interest in the Constitution other than using it to get what they want?

Moreover, what court or judge has held them to it?

None.

We live in a post Constitutional era, and as such, you will get no response from the Left.

Hell, FDR not only locked up innocent Japanese Americans, a clear violation of the Constitution agreed by both Left and Right but nothing was done to stop him.  And still today he is hailed as one of the greatest US Presidents of all time.

LMAO!

Besides, soon the loons will take over health care altogether and we will wind up with what the VA has, along with its never ending scandals that never are addressed.

Yea, the government will save lots of money after that.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 11, 2021)

Exactly Votto 
So if we don't agree to follow the same rules,
what rules are we following anyway?

Same with changing the rules of the election
to mass mailin ballots that not all people and states
agreed to use in that volume that couldn't be verified
accurately as notarized absentee ballots

when we don't agree to the same rules, terms or conditions
contracts become void

You cannot simply dictate what you believe you agreed to 
and assume others are held binding

We need to have a Convention and go over the rules and contracts.
If we do not agree, we need to separate into groups and administrations
that agree to different rules where they can still achieve their objectives within
that group that agrees to that process including paying for those programs.

Only the places where all people and states AGREE can be established
as public laws and govt where we all consent to as mandatory for everyone.

We already agree to keep church groups separate and let their members
run them by their own inhouse rules and contributions.

When we get organized and do the same for Parties,
then we can better distinguish what is agreed on per state,
per party or nationally. And not impose the beliefs and standards 
of one group on another with conflicting beliefs.

We will figure this out by trial and error.
As soon as we realize that imposing beliefs through govt
is not going to be complied with. That goes against human nature
and is the reason for the First Amendment.

Liberals who haven't figured out the Constitution applies
to them may learn by experience why the rules were written
that way to prevent these problems caused by govt overreach
and imposing on individual rights and beliefs that belong to people.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jan 11, 2021)

LOL.....

You're "educating" regressives on why the ACA mandates were unconstitutional?

No you're not. You're trying to teach parrots new words but you're not giving them free crackers.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 16, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)


How did you reach that conclusion?  Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner.  Public health and safety is a power of Government.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 16, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> Note to Progressives: the political belief in right to health care, like right to life applying to unborn, belongs to the people.


Current plans to vaccinate the People seems to gainsay your contention and it is a form of healthcare for the People.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 16, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care.


Right wingers are simply too disingenuous to be credible.  Y'all allege anything can be done for the common defense but not the general welfare.


----------



## DGS49 (Jan 16, 2021)

The final stumbling block in educating Leftists on the Constitutional deficiencies of ACA is almost always the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 of Article I.

To a man, they believe that this gives Congress the power to do anything that Congress deems to promote the "general welfare" of the country.  It will not do to point out that if this were the import of those words, then NOTHING Congress does could EVER be deemed unconstitutional.  Because why would they do anything if not to promote the "general welfare."

I've tried to illustrate the point by pointing out that if THEIR reading were correct, it would not have been necessary for CJ Roberts to deem the penalty in ACA a "tax" in order to make the law pass Constitutional muster.  Indeed, there would have been no issue at all.

I've given up.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 17, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> To a man, they believe that this gives Congress the power to do anything that Congress deems to promote the "general welfare" of the country.


Right wingers are worse.  They proclaim that the common defense clause can do what the general welfare clause cannot. 

Promoting and providing for the general welfare precludes the same for the general Badfare, the general Malfare and even the general Warfare.


----------



## DGS49 (Jan 28, 2021)

Try to focus.  We are talking about the "general welfare" clause.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 28, 2021)

What prompted the ACA?
Fuckbag GW causing massive unemployment.
Companies used to be able to purchase Health Care for their employees at reasonable prices.
Thanks , GW!


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> Try to focus.  We are talking about the "general welfare" clause.


Our welfare clause is General and must be able to promote and provide for any contingency for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> What prompted the ACA?
> Fuckbag GW causing massive unemployment.
> Companies used to be able to purchase Health Care for their employees at reasonable prices.
> Thanks , GW!


A commission to find out why it is so expensive and discover better solutions at lower cost?


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)
> ...


This dumbfuck believes the federal govt has the power to declare old people a "risk to the general welfare" and they can kill them all off.
Of course, that isnt correct. The general welfare can only be applied through other enumerated powers. It even says that at the end
_To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> This dumbfuck believes the federal govt has the power to declare old people a "risk to the general welfare" and they can kill them all off.


No.  That is just you manufacturing a straw man argument and projecting onto others.  The general welfare must not be confused with the general malfare nor the general warfare.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > This dumbfuck believes the federal govt has the power to declare old people a "risk to the general welfare" and they can kill them all off.
> ...


Dumbass.
Its a logical assumption based on your ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Still projecting with nothing but fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem), like usual for the right wing.  The general welfare is not the general malfare.  They are mutually exclusive.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Says the dumbass that ignored the part of my post that proved his ignorance wrong.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


It was Your misunderstanding of the term, general welfare.  Your straw man argument is the general malfare.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I wish you understood how much patience is required to talk to someone of your caliber.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


I really do understand how right wingers tend to have nothing but fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as if they had the "gospel Truth".


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)
> ...


Dear danielpalos
1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?
A. The commerce clause would apply to interstate policies, where federal funds could be distributed to states proportionally to population demands, while leaving the policies for people and states to decide democratically as long as they meet basic Constitutional protections and medical safety standards and professional licensing so no further federal regulation or bureaucracy is added unnecessarily. That way states can better manage responsibility for providing services democratically per district or statewide, and still apply for federal funds, grants clinics or subsidizes such as on prescriptions while maintaining local controls over resources and decisions. Also if you want to enforce the same Supreme Court ruling that found ACA constitutional as a tax law, then this same ruling struck it down as not being authorized under Commerce.
B. If you argue that national security also covers health and medical crises, as in the pandemic response affecting both national safety, security, economy and travel between countries, then medical service should be treated equally as military service. Where people should be required to sign up for medical training and service in order to qualify for educational and medical benefits. So enough people are recruited and trained to provide medical services, if you believe this is a public right.  Right now the military is run by veterans who volunteer and receive benefits for their services; so why shouldn't students who want their education paid for be required to work in public service to qualify as veterans do? Especially for people who believe in mandatory health care, why not require mandatory medical service to provide this health care?
2. The "general welfare" clause cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which also include
A. Not depriving individuals of liberty or property without due process of laws, including rights to defend their own income and labor from "involuntary servitude"
B. Not establishing or prohibiting religious beliefs or discriminating against people by creed
C. Not disparaging rights by enumeration or rights reserved to people and states
Thus danielpalos  even as you enforce your beliefs in govt duty in health care, there are equal numbers of citizens who believe this right belongs to People and States, with equal rights to govern health care choices for themselves WITHOUT depending on federal authority or mandates.
So you cannot take your Statist biased beliefs toward dependence on centralized federal govt and "establish that belief through govt" to force citizens to fund and follow that policy AGAINST their own Constitutional beliefs. Otherwise this violates the rights and laws as described in A-C above.

For policies to be Constitutionally consistent, they would have to meet ALL Constitutional laws, including religious freedom and due process.

Do you understand the problem with enforcing ONE principle (such as general welfare) with flawed legislation that ends up violating OTHER laws?

This is like Christians wanting to defend "free exercise of religion"; but if they abuse schools to impose Christian beliefs about Creation or Prayer *against the beliefs of other citizens*, then that is going TOO FAR and violating other rights.

Or Prolife people wanting to enforce laws that "save the lives of unborn children" but end up violating "DUE PROCESS" rights by imposing govt involvement in personal lives and choices BEFORE anyone has been convicted yet, thus punishing and depriving people of rights or liberty in advance.

Do you understand that laws have to meet ALL Constitutional standards, instead of infringing on some rights for political expedience and agenda to defend others  "unequally."

3. In general do you understand the legal necessity for equally protecting people's rights to exercise their creeds, whether prochoice or prolife, right to life or right to health care, rights of people or states, etc.

If you understand what is necessary for govt to protect ALL these rights from infringement or obstruction by other beliefs, THIS is why I support calling for a Constitutional Convention to set up means for universal access to democratized health care and education WITHOUT imposing federal mandates or taxes unconstitutionally against amyone's beliefs or standards. But that we work out agreements on the best ways to preserve individual liberty and free choice of people, while setting up democratic cooperative health and education programs managed statewide, that can still be supported by federal grants, funding and site facilities while rewarding and empowering people to own and manage their own programs locally.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 10, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> 1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?


Our welfare clause is general not common.  Where do right wingers find any powers of government for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror; or, even an airforce or a space force?


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 14, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Where in the 18 enumerated powers of govt is there a duty or application that you are using to cover health care, education and social support?
> ...



Wrong again.

It has been explained to you repeatedly, and shown you by what Madison stated, that you are incorrect.

Yet, because you have no integrity and need to clutch onto your big lie, you continue to make this stupid claim.

The government is responsible for defense of the nation.  The air force is a no brainer.  The war on terror is the same thing.

As to the rest, they may or not be constitutional.  Only a challenge will show it.

emilynghiem; You've nailed it.  Our resident juvenile just can't fathom that Jack Frost does not exist.


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 14, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > ACA was passed as public health bill through Congress since it would have failed as a tax bill and voted down. But Justice Roberts rewrote his dissenting opinion to rule in favor of ACA as a tax bill since it failed to qualify under either the commerce clause or any other provision (as you use "general welfare" which isnt in the actual Constitutional laws and duties)
> ...



Never been the case for the federal government.

You continue to spout the big lie.


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 14, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> And one more time, educating fellow progressives on why the ACA mandates were unconstitutional.
> ========================================
> To fellow Progressives on why ACA was unconstitutional:
> 
> ...



I am impressed with your level of argument.


----------



## San Souci (Mar 14, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care.
> ...


Depends on what you Reds mean by "Welfare".


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 19, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Right wingers are more disingenuous.  If we can't do anything required for the general welfare, how can right wingers allege and imply that we can do everything for the common defense; when there is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause in our federal Constitution like there is for the general welfare (clause).


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 19, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion.  You need to substantiate that opinion with a valid argument.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 19, 2021)

San Souci said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Any regular dictionary definition will do;  Definition of WELFARE

Our welfare clause is General and must be able to provide for any given contingency in a market friendly manner that promotes and provides for the general welfare.


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You've seen the argument 100 times.

You've ignored it then....I am not wasting my time with you any more.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 19, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in a general manner. Public health and safety is a power of Government.  You need a valid argument not merely insisting you are on the Right Wing and must be Right instead of merely and demonstrably, full of fallacy and Wrong.


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You've been shown where Madison says you're full of crapp.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 19, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


No, you haven't.  You need a valid argument not merely your opinion. 

_The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence._


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



About 100  times.

Not wasting any more time on you.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 19, 2021)

Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Well thank you danielpalos
I looked it up and FINALLY FOUND where you and fellow Liberals are getting all this general welfare business. It is actually listed in one of the 18 enumerated powers; however so are all the other listed powers referring to military and defense, that take up many more articles in the same list (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, while sharing the number 1 spot with BOTH common defense and general welfare stated together). The ratio is strongly toward govt having more business and responsibility for armed and common defense. Clearly individuals cannot represent that for the whole nation, so it makes sense Federal Govt should manage national security and defense for the US as a whole body, while the OPPOSITE is true with individual health care and educational and social policies, that individuals need to defend their own choices which cannot be "dictated the same for everyone by federal govt" (unless we each and all agree to the same policies, which clearly we do not due to cultural and religious differences Govt can defend but cannot establish, prohibit, regulate or penalize for Constitutional reasons). See below, and count how many of the 18 powers refer to military and common defense duties of govt. Very interesting and enlightening, danielpalos , thank you for pointing out both sides are in there but the ratio is clearly on the side of govt focused on external issues of security and not on micromanaging internal affairs which runs afoul by depriving individuals of liberty without due process and by not seeking the least restrictive means of meeting compelling govt duty to protect and represent public interests, including all people of all creeds, not just onesided partisan narrative or solutions seeking to define policy for everyone without taking diversity into account.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 20, 2021)

We can always use better infrastructure; we don't need the largest military in the world, especially when even the right wing doesn't want to pay for it with largest military in the world tax rates.


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 20, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...



Madison was quite clear that general welfare was meant within the context of the enumerated powers.

That was the problem with the articles of confederation.  They didn't give the federal government the resources to do their job.

If you think the country was willing to turn the entire set of keys over to the federal government (as some claim), you'd be ignoring the fact that the framers were facing a lot of distrust on the part of people with regards to the federal government.

That was why the federalist papers were written.  To convince people the U.S. Constitution did not have ultimate authority except in a limited scope.


----------



## MadChemist (Mar 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We can always use better infrastructure; we don't need the largest military in the world, especially when even the right wing doesn't want to pay for it with largest military in the world tax rates.



Got nothing to do with her argument.


----------



## Tax Man (Mar 20, 2021)

The affordable care act is not an illegal law. It was and is for the betterment of America to have healthy people to serve in time of war.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We can always use better infrastructure; we don't need the largest military in the world, especially when even the right wing doesn't want to pay for it with largest military in the world tax rates.


Dear danielpalos
Conservatives I know are happy to pay for military, for benefits for VETERANS who earned that by serving (unlike people who don't serve and still expect other taxpayers to pay for their education for free), and even pay for the Border Wall. Like the contributors who raised millions to support the effort.

Sadly danielpalos  when I have asked my fellow progressives about setting up universal health care through cooperatives, very few understand that is the key. Instead of lobbying our own Democratic donors to invest in creating jobs and benefits directly, we see millions if not billions going into "campaigns to run for office" that could have paid salaries to create positions for entire staff of administrations to manage our own health care!

Wouldn't it be interesting, and make more sense, to require taxpayers to fund the priorities and beliefs they support as the role of govt they lobby for?

Why not give equal choice of
training, service and funding either military service or medical service, as a requirement of citizenship under Selective
Service, in order to qualify for health benefits and education?


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 21, 2021)

Tax Man said:


> The affordable care act is not an illegal law. It was and is for the betterment of America to have healthy people to serve in time of war.


Disagree Tax Man
Not only was it not the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means, but it violated liberty and due process rights of individuals, discriminated by creed and penalized Constitutionalists, Conservatives and Libertarians whose beliefs were violated, and was found unconstitutional in the abuse of funds without Congressional approval, the Hobby Lobby case that focused on one area of religious freedom violation (there were others, such as penalty exemptions only for certain religious memberships approved by govt which is, again, govt regulating religion and discriminating by creed) and where states that sued won their lawsuits seeking multimillion dollar reimbursements. 

Tax Man The options set up could have been kept voluntary and it would have been Constitutional. Democrats supporting it have plenty of resources to support these programs for the people who believe in using govt this way, so those supporters can fund it directly without govt mandate imposing on others who believe in free choice.

This reminds me of the man who saved his son's life, who was about to be unplugged from life support, by holding the medical staff at gunpoint until they agreed to check his claims that his son was responding.

It may have turned out to be for the best, and saved that person's life. But the act of threatening hospital staff with a gun is still ILLEGAL and the man still has to answer for his violation.

With ACA, the cost to taxpayers of the unconstitutional overreach, abuses, unauthorized spending, and govt shutdown over disputing the bill and budget, should all be paid back by the parties responsible.

Unwillingness of Democrats and other progressives to fund their own health care network and benefits does not constitute justification for forcing this through govt for all taxpayers to fund. That is not the "only way" and not the "least restrictive."

Tax breaks could be given to reward citizens and businesses for investing in their own medical associations, teaching hospitals and cooperative clinics, on local or state levels.

There are better ways to coordinate health care that don't involve violating rights of people or states.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 21, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > We can always use better infrastructure; we don't need the largest military in the world, especially when even the right wing doesn't want to pay for it with largest military in the world tax rates.
> ...


I believe our legislators should be tasking Academia to discover Pareto Optimal solutions to our problems in order to better promote and provide for the general welfare.  In our California case, Academia could be more moral by being more faithful to our State motto, and proclaim; Eureka, eureka, at every opportunity!  It could be an alternative to simply rubber-stamping lobbyist proposals.  

I also believe we should be holding Government accountable.  It is an entitlement at law. Equal protection of the law is a responsibility of Government under our Constitution(s).  We should be solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner that can promote and provide for the general welfare.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Mar 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care.
> ...



Where as you think you can do anything you want as long as you couch it in "for the general welfare".


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 23, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Why should you care in any at-will employment State where you could simply quit and go on unemployment yourself, instead of feeling any need to complain about it.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Mar 23, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Try postng something in English that pertains to something someone actually said.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 23, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


In other words, you got nothing but fallacy like usual for the right wing. 

How would You, specifically be worse off with faithful execution of our own laws in our own at-will employment States?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Mar 23, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You're not a bright guy. This is about Maksks. I won't wear them and there is nthing you can do to force it.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 24, 2021)

SCOTUS says otherwise

Conservatives need to be schooled on the Constitution


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 27, 2021)

Right wingers only know how to resort to fallacy and allege they are not really like that, afterward.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 29, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> When we start treating Parties with the same respect as Religious groups, then we might fulfill our Constitutional promises of equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed.



When you start treating politics as a religion????  You have completely lost your mind. 

Political platforms aren’t based of “faith” or a belief system. They’re based on facts , information, and the goals the party hope to achieve for the country. 

The purpose of government is to manage the nation’s resources to the benefit of its citizens, not to promote ideaology and a national identity. 

The fervent promotion of the nation as a religion is one of founding pillars of fascism.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 29, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > When we start treating Parties with the same respect as Religious groups, then we might fulfill our Constitutional promises of equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed.
> ...


Then why does our govt go after people with a different ideology than them?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 29, 2021)

emilynghiem said:


> And one more time, educating fellow progressives on why the ACA mandates were unconstitutional.
> ========================================
> To fellow Progressives on why ACA was unconstitutional:
> 
> ...


This is as wrong and ridiculous now as it was last January.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 29, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



The government isn’t going after people for promoting a different ideology from them. The government is pursuing people who are lying to the public in an effort to undermine and overthrow the US government.

The election was not stolen. There was no voter fraud. The continuing attempts of Republican leadership to suck and blow at the same time are tearing the party apart. 

Republicans need to abandon the naked pursuit of power and cleanse the party the politics of white nationalism, the hateful and racist propaganda being pushed by billionaire corporate media like FOX News, Breitbart, OAN and Newsmax, all of whom receive billions of dollars in Republican tax cuts every time there’s an R in the White House. 

Rupert Murdoch, Robert Mercer, the Sinclair’s, and the billionaire clown who owns OAN, personally benefit from promoting lies about Democrats in the guise of “free speech”. 

Rumours started and promoted by Robert Mercer lead to multiple investigations of Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, and an IRS investigation - none of which found anything improper or illegal about ANY of the Clinton’s business or Charity. 

FOX News promoted Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi investigations, along with other fake scandals like IRS and Fast and Furious - all of which were endlessly investigated by the House and Senate without any findings of wrong doing or criminal charges laid - against anyone. 

Trump spent four years in the entire resources of the justice department investigating his political enemies in the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Obama administration, without filing a single charge against anyone. 

The inspector general for the justice department found the low-level FBI drone who was charged with making a minor change on the Carter Page FISA warrant.  Hardly the massive conspiracy against the Trump campaign which Donald Trump continues to claim to this day.

 At the same time these right wing outlets label investigations of Republicans and specifically Trump administration officials and staffers, as “witchhunts”. 

These “witchhunts” resulted in hundreds of charges, 10 convictions/guilty pleas, and more than $40 million in fines and levies being recovered. 

How do you justify calling Democrats “liars and criminals” when none of your investigations have found any crimes or resulted in any charges?  When those making the false allegations against Democrats have national broadcast licenses to beam their propaganda and lies into millions of home American homes with impunity?


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 29, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Ummm ok boomer. Try watching news from the last 10 years


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Not happening Spanky


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


Even SkyNews Australia is doing the lockdown.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Go for it, I'll be fine.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > As I told other friends, you have your political beliefs you are entitled to. And so do Constitutionalists and Christians who believe in right to life as you believe in right to health care.
> ...


Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Promote does not mean fund.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 29, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Promote does not mean fund.


Can mean that if We the People say so…..

Read the General Welfare clause..

_Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States*;_


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Promote means promote the general welfare at the expense of the "general warfare and common offense" at every opportunity.


----------

