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

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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 Preamble)

Yes. "Promote" not "Provide"...

 

[P@triot]

yet another misreading and misinterpretation? Oy vey!

The framers and ratifiers argued over this stuff since very early on in the new republic. Arguments revealed they disagreed with each other and with you. Imagine that? But funny thing is the states rights tools lost almost every single battle in our relatively short history.

Difference now is a wider echo chamber on the web here any Tom, Dick, and Harriet is free to parade their ignorance and stupidity to a wider audience

Reading your ignorance [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] in post after post is just painful. Nobody could possibly be this stupid (even willfully ignorant libtards like you who have made the conscious choice to not read the U.S. Constitution).

First of all, your entire libtard view on the Supreme Court is absurd, ignorant, and tragic. You cannot find any section in the U.S. Constitution which grants the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution means. The Constitution is written in black & white, is very clear, and means exactly what it says. It is not open for "interpretation". That's just a desperate Dumbocrat sales pitch since their entire communist agenda is unconstitutional.

Second, the only thing more ignorant and outrageous than your brainwashed Think Progress view on the Constitution is your asinine statement on "states rights tools". First of all, unlike you, state sovereignty is not a "tool". It's a simple reality made extraordinarily clear in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “United States Bill of Rights.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=361563814

Now, just because libtards (such as yourself) have violated the law over and over and over does not suddenly void that law, any more than the millions of murders this nation has experienced since it's inception makes void our laws against murder. The fact that you actually try to make the case that "ha-ha, we libtards violate your laws and your rights, so they are no longer laws and rights" shows a humiliating level of ignorance on your behalf.

Your fringe views of most everything, along with your willfull ignorance and imbecility on most everything concerning the history of our beloved nation would be hilariously funny if it were not so dangerously angry and vile.

People who hate America like you do wish to go back to an invented past paradise that never existed except in the collective consciousness of right wing whacko amerika

The history of Executive, Congressional, and Judicial battles and victories in the USA has some people wishing America were a different place, in a different time, with a different history, but reality bites

It sucks to be you
And for that you have my sympathies

So let me get this straight - I post FACTS backed up with two separate links to completely reputable sites with indisputable content, and in your mind that makes me the "willfully ignorant" one?

Sorry cupcake, all you've done is spout uneducated ignorance. I called you out on it - backed it up with actual FACTS, and literally made you my bitch. Like all libtards, you can't handle reality, so you project. Only one of us is "willfully ignorant" chief, and it sure as hell isn't me...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rott does not understand that his definition of constitutional supremacy is not accepted.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, President Obama argued two things in court. One that it was not a tax, but if the SCOTUS disagreed they argued for the result we got.

Also, the SCOTUS responded that they strike down the act only if the Congress lacked the Constitutional authority to pass the act.

Try reading up on the PPACA instead of using ignorantly inadequate talking points

OMG - you're ignorance is legendary...

Ole Barack Hussein spent 2 years telling the American people it was not a tax. Then, when he realized it was unconstitutional and would be struck down, he then argued before the court that it WAS A TAX. That was his entire case.

You are an embarrassment to America, civilization, humanity, and even libtards (which is saying a LOT to be an embarrassment to that pathetic bunch)

The "entire" legal case presented by the Obama Administration and the "entire" true history of the PPACA/Obamacare seems lost on you

Obama admin made two arguments in court, one did NOT come about afterwatds. They went in with multiple arguments. Portraying the fallback strategy as an after-the-fact is a sorrily misinformed reading of reality.

The Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate payment as constitutional under the Congress' Power to 'lay and collect taxes' just as the Obama adim argued in court.

It is a tax on those who do not have health insurance. P retty simple even for somebody with your limited skill set to absorb if you wanted to be honest and rational...

...but you don't, because we have a biracial President in office

I noticed you avoided my post with the link that PROVED you were WRONG like the plague, so I thought I'd add it again for anyone who is not a willfully ignorant subordinate of the state...

Obama Administration: Obamacare's Individual Mandate 'Is a Tax'

Finally, here’s Verilli making the same point at oral argument before the Supreme Court in March: “The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power…Not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.” (h/t Noah Glyn for the video.)

Justice Alito asked: “Can the mandate be viewed as a tax if it does impose a requirement on people who are not subject to the penalty or the tax?” Verrilli: “I think it could.”

Obama Administration: Obamacare's Individual Mandate 'Is a Tax' - Forbes

 

[P@triot]

if you wanted to be honest and rational...

...but you don't, because we have a biracial President in office

So what you're saying is.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Congress can tax us.
All revenue raising bills must pass the House.
Neither the president or congress can force us to participate in commerce.

Obama said Obamacare is not a tax. He had to say that because the House did not pass Obamacare and it would be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS ruled it legal strictly because Obama said it is a tax.

So, if it's a tax, it needs to be thrown out because the bill never got voted on by the House. They merely pulled a fast one and substituted the Obamacare bill for another one. Not allowed legally.

If it's not a tax, then SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional because we cannot be forced to purchase something.

...

[MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION]

It really doesn't matter what Obama said, as he was not the final judgement on what was constitutional regarding the PPACA -- or -- do you really want to take the stance that Obama is the final word on things?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"...but if the SCOTUS disagreed they argued for the result we got." which was that it was a tax.

jesus, some people are dumb

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=23165]thereisnospoon[/MENTION]

OMG - you're ignorance is legendary...

Ole Barack Hussein spent 2 years telling the American people it was not a tax. Then, when he realized it was unconstitutional and would be struck down, he then argued before the court that it WAS A TAX. That was his entire case.

You are an embarrassment to America, civilization, humanity, and even libtards (which is saying a LOT to be an embarrassment to that pathetic bunch)

The "entire" legal case presented by the Obama Administration and the "entire" true history of the PPACA/Obamacare seems lost on you

Obama admin made two arguments in court, one did NOT come about afterwatds. They went in with multiple arguments. Portraying the fallback strategy as an after-the-fact is a sorrily misinformed reading of reality.

The Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate payment as constitutional under the Congress' Power to 'lay and collect taxes' just as the Obama adim argued in court.

It is a tax on those who do not have health insurance. P retty simple even for somebody with your limited skill set to absorb if you wanted to be honest and rational...

...but you don't, because we have a biracial President in office

No, it's a tax on everyone.
IN any event, when the Obama admin was pitching ACA as "commerce" because had the plan been presented as a tax, both sides of the aisle would have run from it.
Once it became apparent that the Law was going to face scrutiny by SCOTUS, the administration switched its tactic and presented ACA as a tax.
THAT was their argument. The Obama attorneys knew they had to argue ACA was a tax lest it be ruled unconstitutional.

Jesus,it was known from day one that the act "was going to face scrutiny by SCOTUS"

Nope on this one too: "The Obama attorneys knew they had to argue ACA was a tax lest it be ruled unconstitutional." - arguing under the commerce and neccessary and proper clauses was one argument and the other argument was the power to tax

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.

 

[P@triot]

Congress can tax us.
All revenue raising bills must pass the House.
Neither the president or congress can force us to participate in commerce.

Obama said Obamacare is not a tax. He had to say that because the House did not pass Obamacare and it would be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS ruled it legal strictly because Obama said it is a tax.

So, if it's a tax, it needs to be thrown out because the bill never got voted on by the House. They merely pulled a fast one and substituted the Obamacare bill for another one. Not allowed legally.

If it's not a tax, then SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional because we cannot be forced to purchase something.

...

[MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION]

It really doesn't matter what Obama said, as he was not the final judgement on what was constitutional regarding the PPACA -- or -- do you really want to take the stance that Obama is the final word on things?

Jesus, you are the slowest S.O.B. on USMB. What part of this don't you understand? Any tax bill must originate in the House of Representatives. So if this is a "tax" - then it is unconstitutional as Obamacare originated in the Senate.

If it is not a tax, then it is unconstitutional as the federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service.

So which is it Dante Dumb-Ass? Is it a tax or is it not a tax?

 

[Little-Acorn]

(duplicate post)

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

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 Preamble)

BTW, the Preamble is not a command, and not even phrased as one. It simply explains the reason the Constitution is being written and enacted. It makes no law, and is not binding on anyone.

Would you like to discuss the actual (misnamed) "Welfare Clause" in the Constitution that IS a command? (Hint: It's a command that forbids the Fed govt from running programs like Obamacare.)

 

[ShootSpeeders]

BTW, the Preamble is not a command, and not even phrased as one. It simply explains the reason the Constitution is being written and enacted. It makes no law, and is not binding on anyone.
.)

The preamble makes it clear that the word "people" means citizens. That is its value and that is very important. It proves illegals have no constitutional rights.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Article III of the Constitution gives SCOTUS the authority.

We've explained this to you a million times. Nullifying laws is an extra-legal process and not included in "judicial power". THINK

We explained to you that the process is not extra-legal, is constitutional, and is recognized "judicial power."

You are entitled to your opinion but nothing more.

The courts cannot 'nullify' laws.
The courts may rule a law to be in violation of the US Constitution. Yet the law still exists.
Infact at no time has SCOTUS ever ruled an entire law be in violation.
If SCOTUS had the power to strike down laws in their entirety, that in an of itself would give SCOTUS more power than the other two branches of the federal government.
And that would be an un-Constitutional power grab.
SCOTUS is NOT a tool for political party, political gain or a means to suppress the rights of those on the losing side of a particular case.
Such is the case of the ACA. we have on this forum, people who wrongly insist that because SCOTUS ruled the law is in compliance with the US Constitution that the law is untouchable. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
If in the event SCOTUS decides a case, the legislature is actually encouraged by SCOTUS to change or repeal the law to put the law into compliance.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The courts cannot 'nullify' laws.
.

They do it all the time you idiot. In roe v wade they nullified most anti-abortion laws.

 

[NightFox]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

The Constitution doesn't grant SCOTUS the authority to declare anything constitutional or unconstitutional, that's a power it just unconstitutionally granted unto itself (Marbury v. Madison), original intent was that the states retained the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional (aka nullification).

 

[thereisnospoon]

[

The courts cannot 'nullify' laws.
.

They do it all the time you idiot. In roe v wade they nullified most anti-abortion laws.

You are incorrect. The Roe decision was based solely on an issue of privacy.
The plaintiffs argued the right to abortion was a 4th Amendment issue.
SCOTUS nullified nothing.
And now states are passing laws restricting the practice.
The fact that these changes are being made fully supports my earlier statement that SCOTUS decisions actually encourages the states and the federal government to change the language of a law or to rewrite them to bring them into compliance.
Now, if you want to get into a contest of insults, let me know.
I will bury you. And I don't give a shit about the rules.
We can have a debate. Or you can lose a battle of insults. Your call.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They do it all the time you idiot. In roe v wade they nullified most anti-abortion laws.

You are incorrect. The Roe decision was based solely on an issue of privacy.
The plaintiffs argued the right to abortion was a 4th Amendment issue.
SCOTUS nullified nothing.
ll.

HAHAHA. More blatant lying from the left. Of course they nullified the state anti-abortion laws. And then replaced it with a law of their own making. The supreme court doesn't just nullify laws, they write laws!!! They did the same in plyler v doe where they mandated k-12 education for illegal aliens.

 

[shintao]

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.

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 Preamble)

BTW, the Preamble is not a command, and not even phrased as one. It simply explains the reason the Constitution is being written and enacted. It makes no law, and is not binding on anyone.

Would you like to discuss the actual (misnamed) "Welfare Clause" in the Constitution that IS a command? (Hint: It's a command that forbids the Fed govt from running programs like Obamacare.)

lol, Art. 1, sec. 8 is quite clear on OC funding. Where do you read forbid at?

 

[Claudette]

Well since it says to PROMOTE the General Welfare and not provide it I think that says it all.

The SC got this POS bill passed as a tax. Thats the only way it could be passed. AS A TAX.

The only winners will be those that the rest of us sill be "SUBSIDIZING." We will be paying for our own HC and everyone elses.

Anyone who thinks a peachy idea hasn't even begun to realize what this POS bill is going to cost.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well since it says to PROMOTE the General Welfare and not provide it I think that says it all.

Promote or provide doesn't really matter. The issue should be obozo never offered any evidence that federalized health care does either.