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

[ShootSpeeders]

[

That is the nonsense of a delusional minority wing of the Republican Party.

That is not the sense or vision of the American people.

This is over for those who are balanced and understand our national narrative and the projection of our future.

HAHAHA. What liberal fuzzy-brained crap. So now the ACA is about our national narrative ? HAHA

 

[RKMBrown]

We are not discussing the rape of women but a simple economic 101 concept, that all nations have a method of redistributing its wealth.
But maybe we better start here: is wealth redistributed in all nations on this planet?

Is rape committed in all nations on this planet?

We are discussing rape because it proves that you have invented your own quack version of "economics 101".

Just because something occurs doesn't mean that occurrence is ok or acceptable.

OK, I think what you are trying to say is that rape is bad and not acceptable, wealth redistribution that all nations do is like rape and bad. That's the best I can do for you.

Wow... that you felt the need to explain rape is bad... yeah wow. The best you can do for him? wow... just wow. Calling you a quack is being kind. More like donkey or hamster.

 

[RKMBrown]

[

That is the nonsense of a delusional minority wing of the Republican Party.

That is not the sense or vision of the American people.

This is over for those who are balanced and understand our national narrative and the projection of our future.

HAHAHA. What liberal fuzzy-brained crap. So now the ACA is about our national narrative ? HAHA

Cut and pasted talking point from the office of disinformation. You just have to believe in the Anointed one and give yourself to him. In Obama's name they pray.

 

[RKMBrown]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

We the People elected the House and Senate that passed it, the President signed it, SCOTUS opined it, and We the People re-elected the President who campaigned on its preservation.

The issue of constitutionality has been decided for the mean time.

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

Why make up lies? The SCOTUS said nothing of the kind.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The ACA must be constitutional, because no one here has given any reasonable explanation otherwise.

We the People elected the House and Senate that passed it, the President signed it, SCOTUS opined it, and We the People re-elected the President who campaigned on its preservation.

The issue of constitutionality has been decided for the mean time.

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

Why make up lies? The SCOTUS said nothing of the kind.

dont call me a liar

it certainly did

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

The Supreme Court On The Individual Mandate?s Constitutionality: An Overview ? Health Affairs Blog

 

[jon_berzerk]

The Commerce Clause argument. The Court next moved on to the mandate itself. It first considered the argument that the mandate was justifiable as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce. Chief Justice Roberts rejected this argument, supported by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, but opposed by Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg.

 

[dcraelin]

That is the nonsense of a delusional minority wing of the Republican Party.

That is not the sense or vision of the American people.

I am an independent, and the sense of the American people is that this was written by lobbyists and a dysfunctional Washington and can't be good

[
the UN-ACA was never supported by the American people
it was pushed by a president who said an individual-mandate was unnecessary
it was passed thru Congress on the promise that wasn't a tax
then in typically twisted logic the the SupremeCourt said it was both not a tax, and a tax
it was written by insurance and medical industry lobbyists

Dammit - you left out the biggest point. It's not among the listed powers of congress and hence it is unconstitutional. That's what this thread is all about.

The courts are a hopeless illogical mess, The courts are as bought as the Senate.
The american people cannot place faith in the courts.

 

[RKMBrown]

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

Why make up lies? The SCOTUS said nothing of the kind.

dont call me a liar

it certainly did

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

The Supreme Court On The Individual Mandate?s Constitutionality: An Overview ? Health Affairs Blog

The statement "that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend" is not the same as your statements:

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

As I said, your statements are lies. Words matter and yours are not supported by the SCOTUS decision. More to the point, yours are blatant exaggerations of consequences that you and others have made up to try and explain why you did not want the SCOTUS to rule that Congress has the authority to tax us. Read the 16th Amendment if you disagree with the SCOTUS' ruling.

 

[RKMBrown]

That is the nonsense of a delusional minority wing of the Republican Party.

That is not the sense or vision of the American people.

I am an independent, and the sense of the American people is that this was written by lobbyists and a dysfunctional Washington and can't be good

[
the UN-ACA was never supported by the American people
it was pushed by a president who said an individual-mandate was unnecessary
it was passed thru Congress on the promise that wasn't a tax
then in typically twisted logic the the SupremeCourt said it was both not a tax, and a tax
it was written by insurance and medical industry lobbyists

Dammit - you left out the biggest point. It's not among the listed powers of congress and hence it is unconstitutional. That's what this thread is all about.

The courts are a hopeless illogical mess, The courts are as bought as the Senate.
The american people cannot place faith in the courts.

While I would agree there are a few liberal courts that are a mess, I would not accuse the entire court system. Appeals appear to work pretty well in cases where the courts have ruled wrongly. Trust but verify is a good way to live.

 

[billyerock1991]

it amazes me how stupid repub-lie clowns are they just can't seem to get it

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.

that says it all and for the dum republicans out there who co0ntinually say promote isn't provide once again

promote:
a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding>
b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch
c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting

Pretty much says it all now doesn't it ... End of discussion... the constitution says ....it so it must be constitutional .... game over

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why make up lies? The SCOTUS said nothing of the kind.

dont call me a liar

it certainly did

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention — that the ACA’s individual mandate was supportable under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce –and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

The Supreme Court On The Individual Mandate?s Constitutionality: An Overview ? Health Affairs Blog

The statement "that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend" is not the same as your statements:

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

As I said, your statements are lies. Words matter and yours are not supported by the SCOTUS decision. More to the point, yours are blatant exaggerations of consequences that you and others have made up to try and explain why you did not want the SCOTUS to rule that Congress has the authority to tax us. Read the 16th Amendment if you disagree with the SCOTUS' ruling.

what my words are correct Roberts would have found the ACA unconstitutional

if the mandate was anything but a tax

my words are correct

the 16th amendment really --LOL what planet are you on

it is not an income tax

it is a tax on inactivity

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

 

[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.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a federal interstate highway system, air traffic controls, a federal department to inspect food and drugs, the EPA, or a Department of Agriculture. Yet, we have all of this federal agencies.

Exactly! All of which are unconstitutional bullshit which the federal government had no business sticking their nose in. You just illustrated exactly why we are $17 trillion in debt and about to collapse like the old Soviet Union.


Perhaps you should read the Preamble of the Constitution.
"
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.

See the part of the Preamble where it says "promote the general Welfare?" What could better promote the general welfare than health care for all the citizens of the US?

Perhaps you should have someone read the Constitution and explain two critical items:

• The Preamble is not the law - the articles are (the preamble is just an explanation for why they are creating the document, stupid)
  
  
• "Promote the general welfare" does not mean provide for a select group. These basic definitions were all covered in elementary school - did you not attend? The 18 enumerated powers of the federal government do "promote the general welfare" (that's why they were granted to them). Defense to keep this nation safe & free "promotes the general welfare". Protecting intellectual property "promotes the general welfare". Fucking over one group of people to provide for another group of lazy, useless parasites is not "promoting the general welfare".

Now that your pathetic and very ignorant liberal talking point had been destroyed, do you want to try again? If so, might I suggest thinking for yourself instead of giving the answer that George Soros trained you to give?

 

[P@triot]

We are not discussing the rape of women but a simple economic 101 concept, that all nations have a method of redistributing its wealth.
But maybe we better start here: is wealth redistributed in all nations on this planet?

Is rape committed in all nations on this planet?

We are discussing rape because it proves that you have invented your own quack version of "economics 101".

Just because something occurs doesn't mean that occurrence is ok or acceptable.

Unless it's something to do with guns of course...ya just can't stop that stuff happening.

Guns are a Constitutional right to protect the American people from people like you who fantasize about oppressing your fellow man "for the good of society".

Is it your official position that rape is a Constitutional right?

 

[Chris]

It's fun watching Republicans twist in the wind because they don't want to help sick people.

Remember the Republican debates? "Let them die!"

 

[LittleNipper]

it amazes me how stupid repub-lie clowns are they just can't seem to get it

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.

that says it all and for the dum republicans out there who co0ntinually say promote isn't provide once again

promote:
a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding>
b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch
c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting

Pretty much says it all now doesn't it ... End of discussion... the constitution says ....it so it must be constitutional .... game over

I do not see how any government can secure the blessings of liberty without enlisting GOD and doing everything to TICK HIM OFF!

 

[TooTall]

The problem is most on the right oppose the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with concerns for ‘individual rights,’ and everything to do with humiliating the president should the Act be repealed.

The proof of this is the fact that conservatives have offered nothing to replace the ACA to achieve the Act’s goals, satisfied to allow millions of Americans to continue to suffer without health insurance and the related skyrocketing costs that adversely effect us all.

That is not true.

WASHINGTON — A large group of House conservatives unveiled legislation Wednesday providing expanded tax breaks for consumers who purchase their own insurance and increasing the government funding for high-risk pools, the Republicans' first comprehensive alternative to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Under the proposal by the Republican Study Committee, individuals who purchase coverage approved for sale in their state could claim a deduction of $7,500 against their income and payroll taxes, regardless of the cost of the insurance. Families could deduct $20,000.

House Republicans issue their own health care proposal | The Leaf Chronicle -- Clarksville, Tenn., and Fort Campbell | theleafchronicle.com

 

[regent]

Generally speaking there are usually Americans for and against new laws but Obamacare is now the law of the land and the next step is for the executive to carry out his constitutional responsibility, and enforce the law. And that's the way it works.

 

[RKMBrown]

dont call me a liar

it certainly did

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It did it in a long and complex decision that rejected the Constitutional argument for upholding the law that had received the most attention &#8212; that the ACA&#8217;s individual mandate was supportable under Congress&#8217; power to regulate interstate commerce &#8211;and relied instead on a much less familiar argument, that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend.

The Supreme Court On The Individual Mandate?s Constitutionality: An Overview ? Health Affairs Blog

The statement "that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend" is not the same as your statements:

The ACA must be constitutional

as long as it is a tax

any other mandate the supreme court said is unconstitutional

As I said, your statements are lies. Words matter and yours are not supported by the SCOTUS decision. More to the point, yours are blatant exaggerations of consequences that you and others have made up to try and explain why you did not want the SCOTUS to rule that Congress has the authority to tax us. Read the 16th Amendment if you disagree with the SCOTUS' ruling.

what my words are correct Roberts would have found the ACA unconstitutional

if the mandate was anything but a tax

my words are correct

the 16th amendment really --LOL what planet are you on

it is not an income tax

it is a tax on inactivity

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government&#8217;s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government&#8217;s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that&#8217;s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

>> what my words are correct Roberts would have found the ACA unconstitutional

This is not a sentence and is completely incomprehensible.

>> if the mandate was anything but a tax

This is not a sentence and is completely incomprehensible.

>> my words are correct

No, none of your words are correct.

>> the 16th amendment really --LOL what planet are you on

Earth. And yes, really.

>> it is not an income tax

Yes it is.

>> it is a tax on inactivity

Applied to income, thus income tax you twit.

I note the following paragraph is not your writing, but it is correct:

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government&#8217;s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government&#8217;s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that&#8217;s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

Please use quotes and cite the writer when you are copying someone's work. I see you added the cite. You can quote something by highlighting the paragraph and hitting the quote button.

 

[RKMBrown]

it amazes me how stupid repub-lie clowns are they just can't seem to get it

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.

that says it all and for the dum republicans out there who co0ntinually say promote isn't provide once again

promote:
a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding>
b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch
c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting

Pretty much says it all now doesn't it ... End of discussion... the constitution says ....it so it must be constitutional .... game over

lol
No, it just means you are a stupid Troll.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The statement "that Congress has authority to impose the mandate under its power to tax and spend" is not the same as your statements:

As I said, your statements are lies. Words matter and yours are not supported by the SCOTUS decision. More to the point, yours are blatant exaggerations of consequences that you and others have made up to try and explain why you did not want the SCOTUS to rule that Congress has the authority to tax us. Read the 16th Amendment if you disagree with the SCOTUS' ruling.

what my words are correct Roberts would have found the ACA unconstitutional

if the mandate was anything but a tax

my words are correct

the 16th amendment really --LOL what planet are you on

it is not an income tax

it is a tax on inactivity

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

>> what my words are correct Roberts would have found the ACA unconstitutional

This is not a sentence and is completely incomprehensible.

>> if the mandate was anything but a tax

This is not a sentence and is completely incomprehensible.

>> my words are correct

No, none of your words are correct.

>> the 16th amendment really --LOL what planet are you on

Earth. And yes, really.

>> it is not an income tax

Yes it is.

>> it is a tax on inactivity

Applied to income, thus income tax you twit.

I note the following paragraph is not your writing, but it is correct:

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

Please use quotes and cite the writer when you are copying someone's work. I see you added the cite. You can quote something by highlighting the paragraph and hitting the quote button.

oh please

you know damn well the the mandate is only constitutional as a tax

i will take your nitpicking as a sign that you have lost