• Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate
    82 replies, posted
I live a mile outside of a tiny ass town. And I went to high school in another tiny town 10 miles away. The closest Walmart is like 7 miles away. There would be no way I'm going to walk or ride a bike to the store and lug back a bunch of groceries every week. There are some buses in town, but they don't come anywhere near where I live. I don't know if the buses in town are a good way of getting around, but they probably aren't that great.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;31700505]A general statement of provision of general welfare would seem to include medical care under the federal government's power.[/QUOTE] Actually, no. [quote]In a nutshell, the Constitution was written and ratified to both authorize and limit the government created through it. It was designed to do the latter not through the Bill of Rights — that was an afterthought, added two years later — but through the doctrine of enumerated powers. Article I, section 8, grants the Congress only 18 powers. Nothing for education, or retirement security, or health care: Those responsibilities were left to the states or to the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear. So what about the General Welfare Clause, the first of Congress’s 18 powers? To be sure, the clause was inartfully drafted, like several other provisions in the Constitution. But it was understood by nearly all as granting Congress the power simply to tax (in limited ways: see the full text). The terms “common Defence” and “general Welfare” were meant merely as general headings under which the 17 other specific powers or ends were subsumed. In fact, the question came up almost immediately, during the ratification debates, and in early Congresses as well, so we have a rich record of just what the General Welfare Clause meant. Here, for example, in Federalist #41, is James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution: [quote]Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?[/quote][/quote] There is debate, obviously, between those who want to ignore enumerated powers and those who do not. Tell me, though, why would they bother creating a list of enumerated powers if the general welfare clause gives the government the power to do basically anything it wants? Many things can fall under general welfare, it's so broad it's perfect for those who would expand power. [QUOTE=DanRatherman;31705162]I honestly think the citation of states rights here is an example of why the concept of states rights is so flawed to begin with. The idea that individual local governments can restrict laws both of a financial and civil nature based on their own individual whimsy is just plain stupid. It's been used throughout history as a tool to both hold back social progress and civil rights when the overwhelming nation-wide sentiment was for these changes. It was that way with state-decided slavery. It was that way with state-by-state moralist laws that stopped interracial and gay marriage. And now it's still that way with the lower-class strangling insurance and anti-welfare attacks. States just continue to prove they're too selfish and stupid to be trusted with the ability to override the Federal Government.[/QUOTE] First, it has nothing at all to do with slavery. The federal government mandated slavery and those who abolished slavery in their states were at first the minority. Then the fugitive slave act came, the federal government demanded the north return all escaped slaves to the south and the north invoked eeevil "states rights" to reject it. They did not export slaves back to the south. The south mentioned the north's nullification as one of the reasons for it's leaving the union. [quote]Judge Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court made the following declaration, that ought to inspire and motivate champions of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty today. Speaking not only for Wisconsin, but of all the states, he said that they would never accept the idea that: [quote]“..an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state.”[/quote] The United States Supreme court eventually reversed the action of the Wisconsin’s courts. Booth and one other man accused of helping to liberate Joshua Glover were found guilty. Both spent months in jail in addition to having to pay stiff fines. This was the price that was paid for Joshua Glover’s freedom. Rather than being deterred, however, Wisconsin, along with several other states, such as Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), and Kansas (1858) all went on to pass even more personal liberty legislation designed to neutralize federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It was no coincidence that the 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court borrowed words directly from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: [quote]“Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”[/quote][/quote] It's states rights which now allow gay people to be married, not which denies them the opportunity. The federal government receives credit for that. Interracial marriage, once again, we see [quote]Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.[/quote] [QUOTE=DanRatherman;31705162]States just continue to prove they're too selfish and stupid to be trusted with the ability to override the Federal Government.[/quote] Throughout the history of the United States "states rights" has been proven to cause far more good than harm. It can swing both ways, good or evil, just like the federal government can. The difference is those atrocities by the states can be overturned on the people's whim and the federal government decrees can not.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31706099]no its not [editline]13th August 2011[/editline] in fact i make it fairly well without driving. i can walk anywhere i wanna go and public transportation can take me if i dont wanna walk[/QUOTE] jesus fuck the baby's coming now oh my god to the hospital where the fuck's the 229-F
Universal healthcare with so low tax? How is this possible! Really get a hold of the economy first the current healthcare system will work just fine, it's not like Micheal Moores sicko.
I love how Americans don't want healthcare, they'd rather let the poor rot and die than spend a portion of their income helping their fellow man. Scum.
[QUOTE=Miskav;31709486]I love how Americans don't want healthcare, they'd rather let the poor rot and die than spend a portion of their income helping their fellow man. Scum.[/QUOTE] how on earth did you manage to translate any of this into all americans not wanting healthcare and being scum.
Sure a mandate would work if they had [I]left in the public option[/I] Why were they seeking compromise all the way back then, I will never understand that.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31700827][URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164609"]OBJECTION![/URL][/QUOTE] What the hell are you on about Glaber? I specifically responded to someone saying healthcare doesn't fall under the federal government's powers. I didn't say anything about the particular thing you just ranted at me about.
It's unconstitutional to force people to help out their peers via indirectly paying healthcare? What the fuck.
[QUOTE=Miskav;31709486]I love how Americans don't want healthcare, they'd rather let the poor rot and die than spend a portion of their income helping their fellow man. Scum.[/QUOTE] It's funny because they don't mind their money being spent on killing middle eastern people
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31709519]how on earth did you manage to translate any of this into all americans not wanting healthcare and being scum.[/QUOTE] People opposing healthcare; Republicans. Republicans = Americans Americans opposing healthcare. I never said all Americans.
[QUOTE=s0beit;31707337]Actually, no. There is debate, obviously, between those who want to ignore enumerated powers and those who do not. Tell me, though, why would they bother creating a list of enumerated powers if the general welfare clause gives the government the power to do basically anything it wants? Many things can fall under general welfare, it's so broad it's perfect for those who would expand power.[/QUOTE] I suppose the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether the broad 'provide for general Welfare' means to be broad, or a general statement of intent of the section. However, Section 8 looks to me to be one large sentence. The later statements aren't the enumerations upon the first - they are all enumerations. For example, "to pay the Debts" is not specified in any later enumeration, and yet certainly the government is mandated to pay its debt (As we had such a lively discussion about just recently). The power to tax isn't listed in the further enumeration, but obviously they have the power to do that. Why is providing for the general Welfare exempt, when the other statements are not?
[QUOTE=Miskav;31709722]People opposing healthcare; Republicans. Republicans = Americans Americans opposing healthcare. I never said all Americans.[/QUOTE] should have said republicans, then - the immediate meaning one gathers from the use of the word "american" is that you're referring generally to americans.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31709752]should have said republicans, then - the immediate meaning one gathers from the use of the word "american" is that you're referring generally to americans.[/QUOTE] It isn't limited to just Republicans though, that's why I used a broader term. I could've also used "assholes" as a proper term, but that'd be too blunt.
by the end it's going to be the republicans celebrating how they've completely mutilated/killed the healthcare bill, completely oblivious to the fact that the US's healthcare is total shit compared to the rest of the first world.
[QUOTE=Miskav;31709722]People opposing healthcare; Republicans. Republicans = Americans Americans opposing healthcare. I never said all Americans.[/QUOTE] Republicans = Americans Americans =/= Republicans
[QUOTE=Sheogorath;31710863]Republicans = Americans Americans =/= Republicans[/QUOTE] That's... What I said. Republicans are Americans, But I never said All Americans were against it.
And what I meant was you basically said all Americans were against it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31706396]That's not the case in a good number of areas.[/QUOTE] driving is a privilege, not a right anyway, having a healthcare bill is unconstitutional, and i'm really fucking glad that this one was shot down but I do want one that actually fucking works [editline]13th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Miskav;31709486]I love how Americans don't want healthcare, they'd rather let the poor rot and die than spend a portion of their income helping their fellow man. Scum.[/QUOTE] are you a belligerent cunt all of the time or just some of the time get hit by a bus
[QUOTE=TBFundy;31711470]anyway, having a healthcare bill is unconstitutional, and i'm really fucking glad that this one was shot down but I do want one that actually fucking works[/QUOTE] What would you consider "actually working"?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31711507]What would you consider "actually working"?[/QUOTE] How about an actual reform instead of just trying a patch up a broken system? All the courts did was say forcing people to buy a product from a corporation whether they wanted to or not, was against the constitution and that Congress was overstepping their boundaries.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31699852][URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5164487"]OBJECTION![/URL] It was a Democrat that ruled against it this time. [url]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081211/content/01125104.guest.html[/url] [url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html#ixzz1UrexqJMx[/url][/QUOTE] Well the health care system is shit anyways. I side with the Democrats on this one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.