Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If conservatives believed in states' rights as much as they claim, they'd want the 2nd amendment repealed and the matter left up to the states. Why should the federal government have the power to tell a state it has to let its citizens own guns, if the people of that state would prefer to decide that themselves?
because of the shortage of wood each person is mandated to only use 2 sheets of paper when wiping ass both must be folded in half for ease of disposal .Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.
I was wondering the same thing.
Pretty soon, we'll be seeing a bill that ensures that every citizen shop at Walmart once each quarter.
WRONG states regulate car insuranceIn the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.
You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.
Of course they can.
The government requires car insurance.
This rationalization should be a winner.Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358
You do realize that that case actually proves your assertion that the federal government has the power to enforce vaccinations wrong, don't you?Let's have it!
What the Court decided was that that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co. 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said: 'The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law.
In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.
You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.
Of course they can.
The government requires car insurance.
You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.
Of course they can.
The government requires car insurance.
Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.
Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.
Why don't you learn to read? I did not say traffic laws make us unsafe. What I am doing is mocking the claim by the Governor's Association that the fact that roads are safe without those laws is wrong.
nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws
What you fail to understand is deciding an action does not violate The US Constitution is not the same as saying that the action is limited only to states.What you fail to understand is deciding an action by a state does not violate someone's rights s not the same as saying that the federal government has the power to engage in that same act.In my citation the question was whether the defendant's US Constitutional rights were violated by being compelled to get vaccinated and the decision was that they weren't. That's it, compelled vaccinations do not violate the US Constitution because they support the common good. It said nothing about who does the compelling or that the common good is limited to states only, so how you can say only the state can do the compelling is beyond me.
Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.
So you are saying that the federal government is prohibited from acting in the common good by the US Constitution.This rationalization should be a winner.You do realize that that case actually proves your assertion that the federal government has the power to enforce vaccinations wrong, don't you?
What the Court decided was that that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co. 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said: 'The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law.
Do you not understand the difference between a state and the federal government? If you don't, I will simply point out, again, that there are no national laws covering immunization. Period.
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.comBill 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.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
You are wrong because I like Obama and guns are the devil.
I believe that sums it up with the same quality of logic.
I don't know...that's a pretty nice horn!
Why don't you learn to read? I did not say traffic laws make us unsafe. What I am doing is mocking the claim by the Governor's Association that the fact that roads are safe without those laws is wrong.
You said this:
nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws
I guess you'd now like to recant that statement? Either presence, or lack thereof, does contribute to the roads being safe, or it does not. Your statement is either meaningless, because you attach no such connection, or you do assert such a connection, in which case it is a flawed presumption.
So you are saying that the federal government is prohibited from acting in the common good by the US Constitution.This rationalization should be a winner.
What the Court decided was that that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.
Do you not understand the difference between a state and the federal government? If you don't, I will simply point out, again, that there are no national laws covering immunization. Period.
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.comBill 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.”
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
So oppressive government is fine, depending on which flag they operate under?So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
Wait a minute....
I understand that this is difficult for some of you on the left to understand. But States have much broader power than the Federal Government.
You see the Federal Government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It can only act in areas where they are given explicit power. Mandating anyone purchase something is not within their powers.
A state government, on the other hand, is given extremely broad powers. Any power not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the States. Thus, unless their state constitution prohibits requiring people to purchase something, the state can pass such a law according to the desires of the people.
Personally, I think requiring anyone to buy something is wrong, regardless of what level of government is requiring it. But simply because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
It's clearly unconstitutional at the Federal Level. I'm not familiar with South Dakota's Constitution, but if they have nothing prohibitting it, then it's clearly constitutional even if it's stupid.
Articles 1-3So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
Wait a minute....
I understand that this is difficult for some of you on the left to understand. But States have much broader power than the Federal Government.
You see the Federal Government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It can only act in areas where they are given explicit power. Mandating anyone purchase something is not within their powers.
A state government, on the other hand, is given extremely broad powers. Any power not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the States. Thus, unless their state constitution prohibits requiring people to purchase something, the state can pass such a law according to the desires of the people.
Personally, I think requiring anyone to buy something is wrong, regardless of what level of government is requiring it. But simply because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
It's clearly constitutional at the Federal Level. I'm not familiar with South Dakota's Constitution, but if they have nothing prohibitting it, then it's clearly constitutional even if it's stupid.
Not at all true.
The Federal government doesn't have explicit enumerated powers.
Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass. They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate. If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.The measure is known as an act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance, he said.
