antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
the constitution is the charter and law of government, bern, not the land. the law of the land is a power that the constitution enumerated to the congress. the u.s.c. is what they came up with. the bill of rights lays out what the government cant do, if that is what you're on about, read that.It most certainly was intended to be the law of the land. The law of the land as far as the federal government is concerned anyway. If the constitution isn't what prevent tyranny, what does? Are you getting the theme yet? No one can answer the question I've asked because everyone keeps going back to what government CAN do rather than coming up with what they CAN'T. Probably because the later is a lot harder if you believe mandating what people must purchase is constitutional.
i dunno what youre talking about with this separation of matter thing.You have to be able to separate your rationale from the subject matter. I am simply applying the rationale to another scenarios. Your interpretation renders the mandate in of itself irrelevant. I am trying to get you to see beyond the subject matter. To do that you have to apply your logic to other scenarios. And the logic has been that the penalty for violation of the law is what make the law constitutional.
if you look at the specific case of the h/c mandate, the tax code's been changed so that if you dont have a certain type of insurance you pay 2.5% of your income in additional tax up to a certain amount.
whether you call it a 'law' or a 'mandate' or 'penalty' or a 'responsibility' as the bill does - the tax code is specifically what it is. could you maybe benefit from separating the semantics from your rationale?
so, if we're settled on the specifics of the healthcare debate, when you say that this is a slippery-slope where government can do anything, i say that's far fetched. the bill of rights makes it so that we can rap freely on USMB. however...the fcc can regulate it, congress could conceivably levy taxes on internet use or internet communication or tax memberships in online communities or keystrokes, but we vote and/or run for congress.
the answer for the 5th or 6th time is that we can vote. that is our constitutional right, and the mechanism through which we could change things about our government that we dont like. there it is. the answer that you have been searching for. in the light.
case in point: prohibition: not a constitutional court override, but a voter override. voting: your only answer. suffrage: the only way.
answer:ˈvōt\ˈvōt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English (Scots), from Latin votum vow, wish more at vow
Date: 15th century
1 a : a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vote