Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
- Thread starter
- #101
The Constitution is the bylaw for Federal government. The rules for government, so to speak. It specifies the role and responsibilities and limitations that Federal government must live within.
It specifies that the Federal government acts "over" states, but is not the bylaws for state governments.
How does it speciifiy that it acts over states.
If you are referring the Supremacy Clause.....
It is only valid where the Federal Government has authority.
From Wiki:...and I think it says it quite well....
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution
So, please tell me again how the federal government has a prayer of thinking it can institute health care. Where is that authority granted it ?
Were you against Medicare and TriCare and the VA and military medical care also?
You asked than answered your question.
" Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution"
Which they are unless the Federal Courts say that they're not.
ACA is health insurance regulation. And a market exchange very similar to Medicare. com. And subsidies.
Nothing new.
That is not what this discussion is about.
Defaulting to "the course say it is that way....so it is constitutional" is not of value here.
To be sure, that is the way it works....as it would be foolish to not follow the rulings of the courts.
That, by no means, is a statement that we have to agree with the ruling of the courts and there is always a chance those rulings could change (they have .....and if you don't think that is possible, then why do the pro/anti abortion people march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe ?....or why does Ted Kennedy lecture potential justices on keeping the so-called "gains" of the past....they know how this works).
That was the original question asked in the OP.
So, again, to default to the courts is not an argument, the courts deliver the consequences. That they can be changed is what is more important.
That such rulings should have never come down is also a matter of discussion (very passionate ones....again...Roe....and BTW, there are many scholars who will tell you that Roe is no longer really valid...here is an article from Slate (hardly TownHall))
Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?
Which only shows that while Roe has not been overturned, it has essentiall been fenced in and states continue to shrink the perimeter.
The left won't challenge this because they know that to do so is to put Roe on the blocks....and they know they could lose what they still have.....it's all about positioning.
Hence, this is the thesis of my OP. Why are the states not more actively engaged in this.
And I suspect they will be when it comes to Obamacare. The law won't survive another round in the SCOTUS and the left knows it. Already states are taking action to hem it in.
That is the beauty of a decentralized government and the folly of the idea of things like Obamacare.
You asked the question....
Medicare: Had I been around when it was formed, I would have fought it tooth and nail. Does that mean I don't think there is a need for some kind of medical help for seniors ? I most certainly do just as much as I've said for 20 years that we do have a health insurance delivery issue that needs to be addressed by getting rid of the government involvement (and then seeing if things don't improve...letting each state do something). I feel Meciare could be coupled with social security in ways I've proposed before......having to do with defined contributions and an overlying safetynet that would not make it as easy to defraud the system...I would also hang doctors who screw the system as well as imprison or fine those who defraud it...and that does mean the elderly who wantonly violate the spirit of the contract.
Tricare: No opinion.
The VA is a different story. The military is the responsibility of the U.S. Government and they have all the authority to care for our veterans and offer them benefits like this.
The one that I might start a CDZ thread on is Social Security. I hate the current system, but have to admit that I can see value in a nationalized system that would look significantly different than the disaster we have today. However, I would pass a constitututional amendment giving this authority to the fed (and it would be very narrowly focussed).
The spirit of the 10th needs to be revitalized in more areas.
Last edited: