Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[itfitzme]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

Yeah. We are adults (at least some of us) and the bottom
line is we can and will do what we need to do to maintain a functioning society and economy.

Some seem to need an "authority" and, while the Constitution prpvides us with a foundation to work with, it isn't the final authority. For that, we have to figure it out ourselves.

Scientific American published a game many decades ago. It was simply a game of making rules. It began with a small set of rules that established the profedures for making more rules. It was, in a sense, an abstract Constitution and a game of playing "law makers". It was quite clever. And it highlighted the reality of the legal system, particularly the Constitution.

The Constitutution sets forth a set of rules for proceding with how to make rules that everyone can abide by.

The failure of the Lebertarian mindset seems to be this mindset that there is some absulolute freedom that can be obtained. If only, that would be nice. And I have never heard a Libertarian or conservative say otherwise. (We should google that).

The reality is that human beings are the ultimate pack or herd animal. We always have been and always will be. Failure to accept that just leads to absurdities and a constant and insane railing against reality.

If nothing else, The Constitution speaks to the fact that we are herd animals. It is the ultimate expression of this.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

Legally, yes it does have to. Of course, when did Democrats ever let the law stop them?

 

[kaz]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

Not familiar with the 10th amendment, are you?

 

[bripat9643]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

SCOTUS is nothing more than a gang of political hacks chosen to vote the way their selectors want them to vote. Their decisions have little to do with the actual text of the Constitution or the law.

 

[Yurt]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

not true:

The legality of the Affordable Care Act appeared settled when the Supreme Court upheld the law last year. Not so, it turns out. Scores of lawsuits around the country are targeting parts of Obamacare, making another high court showdown all but inevitable and raising the possibility that some provisions in the health-care overhaul could be dismantled. “This law is going to be litigated up and down for years,” says Jonathan Adler, who directs the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve School of Law.

Obamacare May Be Headed Back to the Supreme Court - Businessweek

why are you so ignorant luddly?

 

[itfitzme]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

not true:

The legality of the Affordable Care Act appeared settled when the Supreme Court upheld the law last year. Not so, it turns out. Scores of lawsuits around the country are targeting parts of Obamacare, making another high court showdown all but inevitable and raising the possibility that some provisions in the health-care overhaul could be dismantled. “This law is going to be litigated up and down for years,” says Jonathan Adler, who directs the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve School of Law.

Obamacare May Be Headed Back to the Supreme Court - Businessweek

why are you so ignorant luddly?

Well, now that would be just speculation then, that these lawsuits have a legitimate claim. The reality isn't what might happen, it is what has happened and what is. Currently, ACA is law, was challenged in the Supreme Court, and was upheld.

You can imagine all you want, but until it actually happens, it is just your imagination.

 

[Yurt]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

not true:

The legality of the Affordable Care Act appeared settled when the Supreme Court upheld the law last year. Not so, it turns out. Scores of lawsuits around the country are targeting parts of Obamacare, making another high court showdown all but inevitable and raising the possibility that some provisions in the health-care overhaul could be dismantled. “This law is going to be litigated up and down for years,” says Jonathan Adler, who directs the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve School of Law.

Obamacare May Be Headed Back to the Supreme Court - Businessweek

why are you so ignorant luddly?

Well, now that would be just speculation then, that these lawsuits have a legitimate claim. The reality isn't what might happen, it is what has happened and what is. Currently, ACA is law, was challenged in the Supreme Court, and was upheld.

You can imagine all you want, but until it actually happens, it is just your imagination.

upheld as a tax



it was the dumbest decision i've ever read...first the court says the gov cannot force people to buy insurance...then it oddly upholds the law under the powers of taxation...go figure

obama lied and the people got screwed

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

Hey stupid. According to the constitution it does have to. The tenth amendment says any power not given to the feds belongs to the states or the people. The states could set up a state wide health plan but the feds are presently banned from setting up any kind of health plan.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

upheld as a tax

The supreme court rubber stamps everything congress does. That's why the states have to step in and assert their constitutional right to nullify federal laws.

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

Yeah. We are adults (at least some of us) and the bottom line is we can and will do what we need to do to maintain a functioning society and economy.

Some seem to need an "authority" and, while the Constitution prpvides us with a foundation to work with, it isn't the final authority.

The deep-seated ignorance of [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] knows no bounds

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's truly astounding how uneducated liberals are but I guess I shouldn't be surprised coming from a guy who has now posted the phrase "your to stupid" on no less than 3 different occasions now...

 

[P@triot]

not true:

The legality of the Affordable Care Act appeared settled when the Supreme Court upheld the law last year. Not so, it turns out. Scores of lawsuits around the country are targeting parts of Obamacare, making another high court showdown all but inevitable and raising the possibility that some provisions in the health-care overhaul could be dismantled. “This law is going to be litigated up and down for years,” says Jonathan Adler, who directs the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve School of Law.

Obamacare May Be Headed Back to the Supreme Court - Businessweek

why are you so ignorant luddly?

Well, now that would be just speculation then, that these lawsuits have a legitimate claim. The reality isn't what might happen, it is what has happened and what is. Currently, ACA is law, was challenged in the Supreme Court, and was upheld.

You can imagine all you want, but until it actually happens, it is just your imagination.

upheld as a tax



it was the dumbest decision i've ever read...first the court says the gov cannot force people to buy insurance...then it oddly upholds the law under the powers of taxation...go figure

obama lied and the people got screwed

More importantly - taxes cannot originate in the Senate (they must originate in the House). And Obamacare originated in the Senate. Thus (and ironically), the Supreme Courts ruling that Obamacare is "constitutional" as a "tax" in fact renders it unconstitutional.

 

[Steven_R]

The SCOTUS deemed ACA a TAX....Had it decided ACA was commerce, the law would have been sent back to the drawing board.
If you read and understand Article 1 Section 8, it states specifically Congress has the power to 'regulate commerce'...Congress does not have the power to "create" commerce.

Furthermore, the whole idea that health care is "commerce" is ludicrous.

It is commerce.The mandate makes it commerce. Robert's opinion notwithstanding.
When there is a business transaction, there is commerce. A business transaction can be defined as a 'purchase'..The mandate deems that all persons not in the list of those exempt( prisoners, Indians, those on medicare/Caid) purchase a health insurance policy makes it commerce.
Where the loophole that Roberts decided it was a tax was that the purchase is NOT between the person buying and the government, but between the individual and a participating insurance carrier regulated by ACA.

It's commerce because the courts decided it was commerce, not because that is what the Framers had in mind. They meant that one state couldn't put up tariffs against another state or that states couldn't set up partnerships and exclude third states. They never intended Congress to be able to tell people what they could and could not buy or had to purchase. New York even had concerns over the far reaching consequences of such an open ended commerce clause and were specifically told in the Federalist Papers what the intention was, something that was mentioned in the dissent opinion.

It's the same legal gymnastics that gave us Wickard v. Filburn.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

Supreme court ruled the ACA constitutional. The same supreme court that ruled that corporations are citizens. Why don't you repub/teabaglibertarians complain about that ruling?

 

[P@triot]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

Supreme court ruled the ACA constitutional. The same supreme court that ruled that corporations are citizens. Why don't you repub/teabaglibertarians complain about that ruling?

So it's your official position that because the Supreme Court abuses it's power and/or gets a ruling wrong in some cases, it does so in all cases?

Barack Obama is the most bumbling incompetent buffoon in U.S. history and even he has gotten a couple of things right here and there...

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

Supreme court ruled the ACA constitutional. The same supreme court that ruled that corporations are citizens. Why don't you repub/teabaglibertarians complain about that ruling?

I do complain about it. Along with plyler v doe and roe v wade. The supreme court has gone wild - writing laws and repealing laws whenever they wish even though the constitution says all legislative powers are vested in congress.

 

[ron4342]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

There is no mention of "a right to health insurance"...Of course Dear Leader insists this right exists.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says there needs to be a federal highway system, air traffic controllers, national parks, and the EPA, but they exist in this country. Say, try this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The above is the Preamble to the Constitution. What do you suppose "promote the general welfare" means?"

 

[billyerock1991]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

you asked and I delivered

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

buuuuuuuuuuut with your lack of intellect you probably won't understand ...right there in black and white for all to see ... I guess you missed it .... AGAIN

 

[P@triot]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

you asked and I delivered

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

buuuuuuuuuuut with your lack of intellect you probably won't understand ...right there in black and white for all to see ... I guess you missed it .... AGAIN

Hey asshat, promote the general welfare does not mean provide for the general welfare. The 18 enumerated powers that are the constitutional responsibility of the federal government (such as protecting intellectual property and defense) promotes the general welfare. When you take from one group of people and give to another, you are not doing shit for the "general". You are fucking over one goup for the special interest of another.

Clearly it's you [MENTION=36822]billyerock1991[/MENTION] who lacks intellect as you obviously do not understand what "promote" or "general" means.

I love owning Dumbocrats in a debate....

 

[rightwinger]

Congress has the power to set up a healthcare plan just like they had the power to set up Social Security and Medicare.

Time to move to the 20th century conservatives (yes 20th century)

 

[Bluedog]

Unfortunately Chief Justice Hughes said it best:

We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.