Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[hjmick]

why is obamacare unconstitutional but medicare is not?

because a person is not forced to buy medicare.

yes you are check your pay stub

You are charged 1.45% of your income for Medicare. Your employer pays another 1.45%.

I stand corrected. Forgot about that. That being the case, I feel that Medicare is unconstitutional as well, but it's a little late to do anything about that one. The government has no business forcing it's citizens to buy anything.

 

[Bern80]

Again none will be forth coming.

'
OK. Then stop replying to my posts.

I'm just hoping against hope I guess to have an intelligent conversation. But if you are comfortable with how you have conducted yourself and the credibility you have displayed here, that's fine with me too.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Again none will be forth coming.

'
OK. Then stop replying to my posts.

I'm just hoping against hope I guess to have an intelligent conversation. But if you are comfortable with how you have conducted yourself and the credibility you have displayed here, that's fine with me too.

Any time you wanna talk about the law, let me know.

 

[Bern80]

'
OK. Then stop replying to my posts.

I'm just hoping against hope I guess to have an intelligent conversation. But if you are comfortable with how you have conducted yourself and the credibility you have displayed here, that's fine with me too.

Any time you wanna talk about the law, let me know.

The case law has nothing to do with your contention. Requiring people to purchase health care is not a tax. Therefore it has nothing to do with any case law you may site about the general welfare clause.

 

[The T]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

What the FUCK does case LAW have for this? Just because Court cases haven't been brought doesn't make it correct you OAF.

And just because certain cases haven't been challanged Constitutionally via Amendment either doesn't make them correct.

YOU need to learn PRINCIPLE...for YOU lack it. SEVERELY.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

What the FUCK does case LAW have for this? Just because Court cases haven't been brought doesn't make it correct you OAF.

And just because certain cases haven't been challanged Constitutionally via Amendment either doesn't make them correct.

YOU need to learn PRINCIPLE...for YOU lack it. SEVERELY.

If you comb back through all the BS, you'll see Bern08 and I having a delightful argument over whether clause 1 of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution constituted a separate enumerated power, or was merely an introduction to the following enumerated powers. I proved to him that according to the actual law in use, he was wrong, and he decided to try to change the argument instead of admitting he was wrong.

But thanks a lot for butting in on a dead conversation!

 

[The T]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

What the FUCK does case LAW have for this? Just because Court cases haven't been brought doesn't make it correct you OAF.

And just because certain cases haven't been challanged Constitutionally via Amendment either doesn't make them correct.

YOU need to learn PRINCIPLE...for YOU lack it. SEVERELY.

If you comb back through all the BS, you'll see Bern08 and I having a delightful argument over whether clause 1 of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution constituted a separate enumerated power, or was merely an introduction to the following enumerated powers. I proved to him that according to the actual law in use, he was wrong, and he decided to try to change the argument instead of admitting he was wrong.

But thanks a lot for butting in on a dead conversation!

The "ACTUAL LAW IN USE" has ZERO to do what is JUST/Correct *IN PRINCIPLE*

All it means is that it HASN'T BEEN CHALLANGED in COURT as to Constitutionality.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The "ACTUAL LAW IN USE" has ZERO to do what is JUST/Correct *IN PRINCIPLE*

Yeah, you're right. One is real and actually matters in real life, and the other one isn't real and doesn't matter one bit.

All it means is that it HASN'T BEEN CHALLANGED in COURT as to Constitutionality.

Actually, Mr. Buttindouchebaghead, the particular question at hand - the question of how to interpret I.8 clause 1 - has been addressed by the Supreme Court twice. But you'd already know that if you'd read through the thread and didn't just butt in at the end like a total prick.

 

[Bern80]

No case law yet, huh? Must be because you are wrong.

What the FUCK does case LAW have for this? Just because Court cases haven't been brought doesn't make it correct you OAF.

And just because certain cases haven't been challanged Constitutionally via Amendment either doesn't make them correct.

YOU need to learn PRINCIPLE...for YOU lack it. SEVERELY.

If you comb back through all the BS, you'll see Bern08 and I having a delightful argument over whether clause 1 of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution constituted a separate enumerated power, or was merely an introduction to the following enumerated powers. I proved to him that according to the actual law in use, he was wrong, and he decided to try to change the argument instead of admitting he was wrong.

But thanks a lot for butting in on a dead conversation!

What do we know Spidey? We know we have Madison and Jefferson who iterpretted it one way. The way I would. And we have Hamilton who you think favors yours (which probably isn't real accurate). The most major case discussing the issue was the Butler case that favored Hamilton's view. The question is why were they right? What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one? They quoted Hamilton's intent. Would they not have been just as right had they quoted Madison's? That it is the flaw in your presumption and why citing court cases is ridiculous, because you rest under the assumption that every court case interprets every law correctly. THAT is the impass in this debate Spidey.

And you are the one who took the low road in turning the debate into just about the intent of the clause and following enumerated powers. YOU started the thread Spidey asking why Obama's proposal's are unconstititional. YOU are the one who dodges around the fact that mandating the purchasing of health insurance is unconcstitutional and can't be argued as such under the general welfar clause. Instead of trying to formulate a reasonable answer as to how it can you play juvenile games.

Actually, Mr. Buttindouchebaghead, the particular question at hand - the question of how to interpret I.8 clause 1 - has been addressed by the Supreme Court twice. But you'd already know that if you'd read through the thread and didn't just butt in at the end like a total prick.

LOL, you really are the quintissential hypocrite aren't you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one?

They are the Supreme Court, that's what makes it the "right" one. If you were to argue a case before the court today which went against that opinion, you'd lose. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the real, actual, practical law is. The Constitution does not have one "correct' interpretation and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that the very people who wrote the document disagree over what it means. So we have a Supreme Court to decide which interpretation shall be the one binding in law - and your interpretation LOST. So too fucking bad.

 

[jeffrockit]

Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.

Wrong, the Congress clearly has the power to levy taxes for the purposes of providing for the general welfare.


Article I
Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Oh, in fact, it is here, and its everywhere. By your tone I take it you're retired and presently enjoying the benefits of these socialist unconstitutional programs.

Then why did Obama state that the mandate for all to buy healthcare was "not a tax"? If it is indeed not a tax, how is it still constitutional?
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - George's Bottom Line

 

[Bern80]

What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one?

They are the Supreme Court, that's what makes it the "right" one. If you were to argue a case before the court today which went against that opinion, you'd lose. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the real, actual, practical law is. The Constitution does not have one "correct' interpretation and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that the very people who wrote the document disagree over what it means. So we have a Supreme Court to decide which interpretation shall be the one binding in law - and your interpretation LOST. So too fucking bad.

So you what you are saying had they decided it the other way they would also have been correct?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What inherently makes the opinion they came to the right one?

They are the Supreme Court, that's what makes it the "right" one. If you were to argue a case before the court today which went against that opinion, you'd lose. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the real, actual, practical law is. The Constitution does not have one "correct' interpretation and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that the very people who wrote the document disagree over what it means. So we have a Supreme Court to decide which interpretation shall be the one binding in law - and your interpretation LOST. So too fucking bad.

So you what you are saying had they decided it the other way they would also have been correct?

Unless they are overturned in the future, then by practical definition, yes.

 

[Bern80]

They are the Supreme Court, that's what makes it the "right" one. If you were to argue a case before the court today which went against that opinion, you'd lose. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the real, actual, practical law is. The Constitution does not have one "correct' interpretation and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that the very people who wrote the document disagree over what it means. So we have a Supreme Court to decide which interpretation shall be the one binding in law - and your interpretation LOST. So too fucking bad.

So you what you are saying had they decided it the other way they would also have been correct?

Unless they are overturned in the future, then by practical definition, yes.

Then what I said about your position earlier is true (whether you admit it or not) courts interpret the law correctly 100% of the time. Glad we finally cleared that up.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So you what you are saying had they decided it the other way they would also have been correct?

Unless they are overturned in the future, then by practical definition, yes.

Then you agree with my earlier (whether you admit it or not) courts interpret the law correctly 100% of the time. Glad finally cleared that up.

Only the Supreme Court

 

[manu1959]

why not just open medicare up to everyone and allow interstate purchase of insurance...

 

[Bern80]

Unless they are overturned in the future, then by practical definition, yes.

Then you agree with my earlier (whether you admit it or not) courts interpret the law correctly 100% of the time. Glad finally cleared that up.

Only the Supreme Court

You've dug yourself quite a hole spidey. I really don't think you get what you're saying. That or your just plain too pig headed to admit the ridiculosuness of it. Do you understand that what you just said is that the reason they made the correct decision is because they made A decision? You don't find it just amazing given how the court has been politicized both ways that every single time they rendered an opinion the majority opinion just happened to be the one's to get it right. Not even your buddy Obama believes that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then you agree with my earlier (whether you admit it or not) courts interpret the law correctly 100% of the time. Glad finally cleared that up.

Only the Supreme Court

You've dug yourself quite a hole spidey. I really don't think you get what you're saying. That or your just plain too pig headed to admit the ridiculosuness of it. Do you understand that what you just said is that the reason they made the correct decision is because they made A decision? You don't find it just amazing given how the court has been politicized both ways that every single time they rendered an opinion the majority opinion just happened to be the one's to get it right. Not even your buddy Obama believes that.

Bern08, you need to go back to high school civics class. The Supreme Court's ruling on a case is final, there is no higher authority.

 

[Bern80]

Only the Supreme Court

You've dug yourself quite a hole spidey. I really don't think you get what you're saying. That or your just plain too pig headed to admit the ridiculosuness of it. Do you understand that what you just said is that the reason they made the correct decision is because they made A decision? You don't find it just amazing given how the court has been politicized both ways that every single time they rendered an opinion the majority opinion just happened to be the one's to get it right. Not even your buddy Obama believes that.

Bern08, you need to go back to high school civics class. The Supreme Court's ruling on a case is final, there is no higher authority.

And you need to go back to english class and learn the difference between opinion and truth. That is what the court renders, AN OPINION. Yes it is the final word. None of which means their OPINION will be the correct interpretation of the law.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You've dug yourself quite a hole spidey. I really don't think you get what you're saying. That or your just plain too pig headed to admit the ridiculosuness of it. Do you understand that what you just said is that the reason they made the correct decision is because they made A decision? You don't find it just amazing given how the court has been politicized both ways that every single time they rendered an opinion the majority opinion just happened to be the one's to get it right. Not even your buddy Obama believes that.

Bern08, you need to go back to high school civics class. The Supreme Court's ruling on a case is final, there is no higher authority.

And you need to go back to english class and learn the difference between opinion and truth. That is what the court renders, AN OPINION. Yes it is the final word. None of which means their OPINION will be the correct interpretation of the law.

Their opinion is the only opinion that matters.