Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Charles_Main]

2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.

Wow, Your an idiot, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. It may not Grant you rights,

So you agree that you are wrong and that I am right. Thank you.
You may not provide the cite(s) I asked for.

No I agree that you are a fucking idiot who is playing semantics. It in effect grants you rights, By Telling the FED what it can not take away from you.

Either you are a complete fool, and do not understand that, Or your just a partisan hack trying to make a point where there is none.

 

[Charles_Main]

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

You do understand that they are separate issues right. One is unconstitutional under the US constitution. The other may or may not be under the SD constitution.

I swear you lefties just do not understand the meaning of Federal Republic. I mean you do understand that our US constitution grants the Fed certain Powers, and anything not granted to it, is assumed to be a power of the States. Who have their own Constitutions right? Or do you not get that.

The Health care mandate is IMO clearly unconstitutional on the Federal Level. However it may or may not be constitution under the individual States constitutions.

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce. In fact, the US taxpayer currently pays between 40 and 50 billion a year on emergency health care which involve income taxes and property taxes. "Paying for services" - the very definition of "commerce".

Emergency rooms and emergency care has to be paid for somehow.

Just curious. How do right wingers believe this service is paid for? Even the "Tooth Fairy" doesn't have that much gold.

Once money has changed hands to pay for a service, it becomes "commerce".

You do not understand the argument the 26 states are making. They never claimed it "involved no commerce" they are claiming that the commerce clause does not allow for such a sweeping mandate. Period.

Do try and know what the hell you are talking about ok.

 

[Charles_Main]

The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.

That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.

If that is so why was it even written into the Bill Of Rights which expressly deal with INDIVIDUAL rights?

Where does it say that?

He can't read, or he does not know what a comma means.

If you read it, and leave out the comma it can seem to say that only in a militia do we have the right to bear arms. However if you know proper English, and read it with the comma it clearly says we have the right to bear arms, and the right to an organized militia.

 

[manifold]

Wow, Your an idiot, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. It may not Grant you rights,

So you agree that you are wrong and that I am right. Thank you.
You may not provide the cite(s) I asked for.

No I agree that you are a fucking idiot who is playing semantics. It in effect grants you rights, By Telling the FED what it can not take away from you.

Either you are a complete fool, and do not understand that, Or your just a partisan hack trying to make a point where there is none.

In case you missed it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/149700-dumbest-post-of-the-new-year-so-far.html

 

[Charles_Main]

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.

This is a very useful piece of information. The fact that the US Supreme Court even heard the case indicates that the case involved an issue under the federal constitution. If the case did not raise a question about the legality of the law under the federal constitution, then the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Yet another person who does not understand our Federal Republic.

the US supreme court can rule on State Laws, as to whether or not they violate the US constitution, Because the US constitution clearly states that the states shall enact constitutions and those constitutions may not in any way superceed or Violate the Federal Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow, Your an idiot, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. It may not Grant you rights,

So you agree that you are wrong and that I am right. Thank you.
You may not provide the cite(s) I asked for.

No I agree that you are a fucking idiot who is playing semantics. It in effect grants you rights

No. To anyone with even a child's grasp of the language, it does no such thing.

The rights pre-exist the formation of government. The amendments protect those rights from action against them by the government. There's no grant of the rights in any way shape or form.

Not sure where you went to school - but you need to look into getting your money back.


Still waiting for that cite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Vaccinations would fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, just as they do in state constitutions. There is nothing enumerated specifically naming vaccinations in any state constitution either. Compulsory vaccination laws have been passed, challenged in the courts and upheld as constitutional by the SCOUS.

When was the last time you got vaccinated?

The last time I wanted to travel abroad.
How about you? Do you ever travel outside the US?

Those vaccinations are not mandatory unless you are traveling to a country where yellow fever is prevalent. Also, those vaccinations are not required by US law, they are required by international health regulations and treaties. If you actually bother to read the Constitution you would know that treaties are covered separately, so your claim that vaccinations are covered by the General Welfare clause is erroneous.

If, on the other hand, you are thinking about vaccinations for public school attendance, those are required by the states, not the federal government. That is not part of the General Welfare clause either.

By the way, the General Welfare clause is not a clause, it is two words in a sentence that describes how, and why, Congress can impose taxes.

 

[rdean]

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce.

This was completely untrue (did you make it up?), so I didn't read the rest.

Issue & Argument; HC Mandate = Tax? Furthermore…

Issue

In order to protect the new national Health Care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax — even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

The HC dispute revolves around the individual mandate of the health care plan that states every U.S. citizen would have to have health insurance. The Thomas More Law Center believes this violates the commerce clause of the Constitution.

It’s not a Constitutional tax. Constitutionally, it must be one of the following: 1) a uniform excise tax (a tax on transactions at a uniform rate,) 2) an income tax or else 3) a “direct tax” that must be equally apportioned among the States. It’s clearly not any of those…

They can’t use the law they wrote to create a TAX. If they are going to call it a tax, they have to TREAT it like a tax. How does commanding everyone in the nation to buy from a private insurer constitute a tax? Taxes are paid to the government and its agencies not to private companies. They are essentially arguing that the insurance companies, which they are mandating we purchase from, are now de-facto arms of the government.Taxes are paid to the government – not insurers. Its not a tax, just because the IRS enforces it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

You know the thing that I find ironic? The sole reason this bill was introduced was to make the point that mandates are unconscionable because they force people to do something, and takes away their options. And you, who apparently think mandating buying insurance is a good idea, oppose mandating gun ownership.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

You do understand that they are separate issues right. One is unconstitutional under the US constitution. The other may or may not be under the SD constitution.

I swear you lefties just do not understand the meaning of Federal Republic. I mean you do understand that our US constitution grants the Fed certain Powers, and anything not granted to it, is assumed to be a power of the States. Who have their own Constitutions right? Or do you not get that.

The Health care mandate is IMO clearly unconstitutional on the Federal Level. However it may or may not be constitution under the individual States constitutions.

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce. In fact, the US taxpayer currently pays between 40 and 50 billion a year on emergency health care which involve income taxes and property taxes. "Paying for services" - the very definition of "commerce".

Emergency rooms and emergency care has to be paid for somehow.

Just curious. How do right wingers believe this service is paid for? Even the "Tooth Fairy" doesn't have that much gold.

Once money has changed hands to pay for a service, it becomes "commerce".

Hey genius, no one is saying that health care is unconstitutional. What I, and others, are saying is that forcing people to buy a product they do not want is unconstitutional. I had health insurance I was perfectly happy with before this law was passed, and now I no longer have health insurance because the plan I had is no longer offered because the new law mandates that I get coverage I do not want, and is forcing me to pay for coverage I will never use. Trust me, if I ever get pregnant the very last thing I will need to worry about is paying for maternity coverage. I will also not have to work ever again in my life.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com
Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If you don't like Government Health Care then you can't like this law either.

Governments shouldn't mandate anything!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incumbent in any right is the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise said right.

This bill forces people to bear arms, thereby infringing on their freedom to choose whether or NOT to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

The bill is therefore unconstitutional.

Seriously, it blows me away that many of you don't understand this.

Funny thing is that the Supreme Court disagrees, and has upheld other laws that require people to own weapons, even on a national level. That power is clearly constitutional under the ability of Congress to raise a militia.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com
Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If you don't like Government Health Care then you can't like this law either.

Governments shouldn't mandate anything!

If they didn't mandate anything, what would be the point of the government. If you said "mandate the purchase of anything" I'd be in total agreement. But anything.... all law are mandates.

 

[rdean]

You do understand that they are separate issues right. One is unconstitutional under the US constitution. The other may or may not be under the SD constitution.

I swear you lefties just do not understand the meaning of Federal Republic. I mean you do understand that our US constitution grants the Fed certain Powers, and anything not granted to it, is assumed to be a power of the States. Who have their own Constitutions right? Or do you not get that.

The Health care mandate is IMO clearly unconstitutional on the Federal Level. However it may or may not be constitution under the individual States constitutions.

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce. In fact, the US taxpayer currently pays between 40 and 50 billion a year on emergency health care which involve income taxes and property taxes. "Paying for services" - the very definition of "commerce".

Emergency rooms and emergency care has to be paid for somehow.

Just curious. How do right wingers believe this service is paid for? Even the "Tooth Fairy" doesn't have that much gold.

Once money has changed hands to pay for a service, it becomes "commerce".

Hey genius, no one is saying that health care is unconstitutional. What I, and others, are saying is that forcing people to buy a product they do not want is unconstitutional. I had health insurance I was perfectly happy with before this law was passed, and now I no longer have health insurance because the plan I had is no longer offered because the new law mandates that I get coverage I do not want, and is forcing me to pay for coverage I will never use. Trust me, if I ever get pregnant the very last thing I will need to worry about is paying for maternity coverage. I will also not have to work ever again in my life.

Two things, for one, you know you are lying. No one took away your health care.

Second, you are paying for it now. Your taxes are paying for emergency room care and HC for the uninsured. That's between 40 and 50 billion a year.

What the Obama Health Care bill does is spread around the cost so working Americans aren't slammed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.

This is a very useful piece of information. The fact that the US Supreme Court even heard the case indicates that the case involved an issue under the federal constitution. If the case did not raise a question about the legality of the law under the federal constitution, then the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Or under federal law.

Just saying.

 

[rdean]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com
Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If you don't like Government Health Care then you can't like this law either.

Governments shouldn't mandate anything!

I agree with you.

Fuck speed laws.

Fuck safety.

Fuck clean air and clean water.

Fuck safe food.

Fuck bridge and road inspection.

I will do what I want, when I want. That's the America I want to live in!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Two things, for one, you know you are lying. No one took away your health care.

Second, you are paying for it now. Your taxes are paying for emergency room care and HC for the uninsured. That's between 40 and 50 billion a year.

What the Obama Health Care bill does is spread around the cost so working Americans aren't slammed.

The whole point of Obamacare is to undermine the market and drive private providers out of business forcing everyone one a single payer plan. You know this. Lying about it doesn't change reality.

All costs for everything government does is on working Americans, because the Federal Government taxes income.

There is no mythical group of people who doesn't work for their income.

 

[Agit8r]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?

Well not really.

Maybe SD wants to get rid of police

They should do that here in Spokane. Disband the thugs and have ordinary citizens form a Committee of Public Safety... yeah

 

[Mad Scientist]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com
Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If you don't like Government Health Care then you can't like this law either.

Governments shouldn't mandate anything!

I agree with you.

Fuck speed laws.

Fuck safety.

Fuck clean air and clean water.

Fuck safe food.

Fuck bridge and road inspection.

I will do what I want, when I want. That's the America I want to live in!!!!

Safety regulations and insurance mandates are to different things entirely. But why would I expect you to understand? From the looks of your avatar you're clearly retarded.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce. In fact, the US taxpayer currently pays between 40 and 50 billion a year on emergency health care which involve income taxes and property taxes. "Paying for services" - the very definition of "commerce".

Emergency rooms and emergency care has to be paid for somehow.

Just curious. How do right wingers believe this service is paid for? Even the "Tooth Fairy" doesn't have that much gold.

Once money has changed hands to pay for a service, it becomes "commerce".

Hey genius, no one is saying that health care is unconstitutional. What I, and others, are saying is that forcing people to buy a product they do not want is unconstitutional. I had health insurance I was perfectly happy with before this law was passed, and now I no longer have health insurance because the plan I had is no longer offered because the new law mandates that I get coverage I do not want, and is forcing me to pay for coverage I will never use. Trust me, if I ever get pregnant the very last thing I will need to worry about is paying for maternity coverage. I will also not have to work ever again in my life.

Two things, for one, you know you are lying. No one took away your health care.

Second, you are paying for it now. Your taxes are paying for emergency room care and HC for the uninsured. That's between 40 and 50 billion a year.

What the Obama Health Care bill does is spread around the cost so working Americans aren't slammed.

1. I did not say anyone took away my health care. I said that the the insurance policy I used to have is no longer available. I was quite happy with an annual cap on my insurance, and the fact that I had a lifetime cap on how much insurance I could use. I was also quite content paying for office visits, routine tests, and most of my meds. Are you going to try and tell me the ACA doe not make that type of insurance policy illegal?
2. I was paying for it before, now you are paying for it. I fall below the cut off for being required to actually buy insurance, which means I no longer have to pay for anything.