Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
May 13, 2012
20,232
2,363
280
Establishing a national health care system is obviously NOT one of the listed powers of congress. Democrats say "it's covered by the general welfare clause" but where is the evidence for that.? How can you prove ANYTHING provides for the general welfare.??

All congress has is the listed powers and that means 99% of what congress does is unconstitutional. States need to assert that and start nullifying federal laws right and left.
 
While I think Universal Healthcare is a great idea I agree it seems unconstitutional. Then again the "conservative" party thinks sending our military across the world to change the government of another country by force is not a war.

I like the NAACP and affirmative action also lol but can admit Obamacare / Romney car on a national level if quite a stretch of the constitution.
 
It would appear it is constitutional. Until the courts say otherwise, this is a moot discussion.
 
Establishing a national health care system is obviously NOT one of the listed powers of congress. Democrats say "it's covered by the general welfare clause" but where is the evidence for that.? How can you prove ANYTHING provides for the general welfare.??

All congress has is the listed powers and that means 99% of what congress does is unconstitutional. States need to assert that and start nullifying federal laws right and left.

Aren't you like a year late with this one?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
I like the NAACP and affirmative action also lol but can admit Obamacare / Romney car on a national level if quite a stretch of the constitution.

How do you reconcile AA with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
It would appear it is constitutional. Until the courts say otherwise, this is a moot discussion.

The scotus has already ruled it constitutional. Did it last year but so what? They have no authority to accept or void laws. According to the tenth amendment, only the states can do that.
 
It would appear it is constitutional. Until the courts say otherwise, this is a moot discussion.

The scotus has already ruled it constitutional. Did it last year but so what? They have no authority to accept or void laws. According to the tenth amendment, only the states can do that.

Actually, they do. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution says they do. The 10th amendment says that any rights not assigned to the Federal government go to the states, but Article III does assign that to the courts.

That is "so what". They have the authority, they excercise the authority and that authority is recognized by every state and local government in the country. I'd say that pretty much cinches it whether you agree with their decisions or not.
 
I like the NAACP and affirmative action also lol but can admit Obamacare / Romney car on a national level if quite a stretch of the constitution.

How do you reconcile AA with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

I think its less trouble than the government equally protecting every application that comes across my desk to make sure my racist white friends interview the Johnsons and Smiths as often as the Pozlowskies and O'Donnels.

Not ideal but a necessary evil. I look white so you should hear some of the stuff I have heard from folks who you would think were smarter than that! It is a good think dark skinned folks can not lose an accent and the tan for a day with Hollywood make-up or there would be race riots again.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
The scotus has already ruled it constitutional. Did it last year but so what? They have no authority to accept or void laws. According to the tenth amendment, only the states can do that.

Actually, they do. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution says they do. The 10th amendment says that any rights not assigned to the Federal government go to the states, but Article III does assign that to the courts.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,"

How do you get out of that the authority to nullify laws??? I don't think you understand that nullification is an extra-legal process.
 
How do you reconcile AA with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

I think its less trouble than the government equally protecting every application that comes across my desk to make sure my racist white friends interview the Johnsons and Smiths as often as the Pozlowskies and O'Donnels.

.

sigh Your tiny little brain doesn't understand the issue. You may think AA is ethical but how do you reconcile it with the 14th amendment.? THINK
 
How do you reconcile AA with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

I think its less trouble than the government equally protecting every application that comes across my desk to make sure my racist white friends interview the Johnsons and Smiths as often as the Pozlowskies and O'Donnels.

.

sigh Your tiny little brain doesn't understand the issue. You may think AA is ethical but how do you reconcile it with the 14th amendment.? THINK

Think about how AA makes companies at least look like they hire minorities on an equal basis? I stated my reasoning. If you think the government actually hiring folks for that old fortune500 company I worked for sounds like less trouble than AA, state your case.

Or if you think racism is not alive and well say so, but that I do disagree with.
 
Think about how AA makes companies at least look like they hire minorities on an equal basis? .


HUH???? It's just the opposite, you nitwit. AA means hiring on an UNEQUAL basis - that's the idea. Give minorities special treatment and persecute whites.
 
Think about how AA makes companies at least look like they hire minorities on an equal basis? .


HUH???? It's just the opposite, you nitwit. AA means hiring on an UNEQUAL basis - that's the idea. Give minorities special treatment and persecute whites.

I guess it is in how you look ay it then.

I view AA as enforcing equal protection by sword as many humans are still shocked when they see an inter racial couple.

What is up with the name calling? Only women who are trying to entice a man into beating them would do that. Unless you are drunk or a jerk or just trying to intimidate folks into thinking if you yell you must be right.
 
The scotus has already ruled it constitutional. Did it last year but so what? They have no authority to accept or void laws. According to the tenth amendment, only the states can do that.

Actually, they do. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution says they do. The 10th amendment says that any rights not assigned to the Federal government go to the states, but Article III does assign that to the courts.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,"

How do you get out of that the authority to nullify laws??? I don't think you understand that nullification is an extra-legal process.

I don't think you understand how the court works. The court does not just say they don't like a law and nullify it. A case is filed and arguments are made. The court then decides on the case, exactly as the Constitution outlines. Let me repeat... they have the power, they exercise the power and that power is recognized by every government in the nation. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
 
[
I don't think you understand how the court works. The court does not just say they don't like a law and nullify it. A case is filed and arguments are made. The court then decides on the case, exactly as the Constitution outlines. Let me repeat... they have the power, they exercise the power and that power is recognized by every government in the nation. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.

HAHAHA. That is yet another brazen lie from one of our paid govt shills. Nowhere does the constitution outline the procedure for nullifying laws. I wish it did but it doesn't. The court just granted the power to itself 200 years ago.
 
[
I view AA as enforcing equal protection by sword as many humans are still shocked when they see an inter racial couple.

.

HUH????? You think people are shocked by inter-racial marriage so that justifies persecuting white people in the job market???? YOU ARE TOTALLY NUTS!!!
 
[
I view AA as enforcing equal protection by sword as many humans are still shocked when they see an inter racial couple.

.

HUH????? You think people are shocked by inter-racial marriage so that justifies persecuting white people in the job market???? YOU ARE TOTALLY NUTS!!!

SS, let me try to word it another way if you are confused.

If we let continued racism create classes of non-intermingling Americans our country is sure to have more problems.

SO, instead of having big brother do all the hiring fairly and equally for everyone even though it no doubt would be fair I am willing to put up with big brother only sticking its nose in where companies have noticeably poor hiring practices.

Are there AA problems? I am sure. The St Louis Cardinals can't even always decide which one of only 12 relievers to use so in a country with hundreds of thousands of jobs sure there are problems. I think the current system is for the best though.

Make sense? Sorry to offend you by disagreeing.
 
If we let continued racism create classes of non-intermingling Americans our country is sure to have more problems.

There is no racism in america except affirmative action.

Looking white, I have been around white folks when they let their guard down so I disagree.

However there is hope. We did elect a black man with a Muslim sounding name President. We are inching there.

I especially hope YOU are right for your area and it will spread to mine. Thank you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top