Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
bonus question:
why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?
what really happened to make the court change its mind?
more to the point.... "Says WHO?"
Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional? If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.
Wrong. They are the last word on the issue. That doens't mean their word is right. If the supreme court always got it right in terms of whether something is constitutional there would never be a split decisions on anything.
the supreme court is, by definition, ALWAYS "right" when it comes to determining the constitutionality of statutes.
bonus question:
why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?
what really happened to make the court change its mind?
Uuuuuummmm same reason Dude gave last time. I guess maybe this needs to be explained on a kidnergarten level. The Supreme COURT is presided over by judges. The role of a judge is to hear cases. They aren't a committee. They don't have the pervue to sit all day and run through laws deciding if they are constitutional. They can only rule on what is brought before them.
Wrong. They are the last word on the issue. That doens't mean their word is right. If the supreme court always got it right in terms of whether something is constitutional there would never be a split decisions on anything.
the supreme court is, by definition, ALWAYS "right" when it comes to determining the constitutionality of statutes.
You can use 'by defintion' all you like and pretend it's the final word, but it isn't. You have a problem seperating absolute truth from what the court decides. The intent of the constitution does not change as the court's opinion about it has. Again if they always get it right regarding the constitutionality of an issue obviously every decision would be unanimous. The very fact that there are split decisions shows that absolute truth of what is constitutional can be different than whay they say is constitutional.
bonus question:
why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?
what really happened to make the court change its mind?
Uuuuuummmm same reason Dude gave last time. I guess maybe this needs to be explained on a kidnergarten level. The Supreme COURT is presided over by judges. The role of a judge is to hear cases. They aren't a committee. They don't have the pervue to sit all day and run through laws deciding if they are constitutional. They can only rule on what is brought before them.
i was talking about court packing. scotus was going to rule against fdr expansion of federal powers, so fdr threatened to pack the court, scotus backed down and ruled in favor of fdr
Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.
ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.
Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.
ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.![]()
Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.
ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.![]()
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
They said medicare was unconstitutional. In fact, if you look hard enough, every single thing they are saying about Obama healthcare, they said about medicare and social security.
ONCE AGAIN, THE REPUBLICANS WILL GO DOWN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. Once again.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Who is it that is making that argument?
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
They said medicare was unconstitutional. In fact, if you look hard enough, every single thing they are saying about Obama healthcare, they said about medicare and social security.
ONCE AGAIN, THE REPUBLICANS WILL GO DOWN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. Once again.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Who is it that is making that argument?
Rush, hannity, beck, all their fans and the idiots in here.
If you have insurance, this wont affect you in the least bit. Well, it will change the costs eventually. It will be lower because of COMPETITION.
Did you enjoy your last rate hike?
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.
Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.
ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.![]()
exactly
further, there is also the issue of when something is unconstitutional on its face, though scotus has not ruled such a law unconstitutional, it can be disregarded if the law is unconsitutional on its face....and the president has such a duty
Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?
Then it should be very easy for you to show me things like 'TO provide health care' and 'TO require people have health insurance'.
ooookaaay. What's your point?
I thought so too. That list tells the fed what it can do. Provide health care and force people to purchase insurance aren't on the list, so the fed can't do it. I agree. Pretty simple.
You really mean to tell me Jefferson wouldn't have a problem with the fed REQUIRING people to purchase health care? That he wouldn't have a problem with the fed subsidizing and running a public option?