ObamaCare unconstitutional?? lmao!

Brilliant post, you won't see the usual suspect neo-cons piping in on that one, they are more the mynah bird variety repeating the same tired regressive rhetoric.

 

The fascist pig named Ronald Reagan hooked up his corporate buddies and "suggested" the states adopt mandatory auto ins and seat belts or lose highway funding. Keep calling it a state issue and I'll keep seeing it as a power grab as you and yours calls it.

 

Case law is derrived from those Amendments, so vicariously there are laws in it.

 

Whether Obamacare is the proper course or not.. at least the issue is on the table..

And long overdue.. about 20 years overdue.

Healthcare reform is a MUST.. Ask your physician or your local hospital administrator..

Cost shifting continues to drive costs upward and deny more Americans access.

I have NOT read the 2000 pages re: Obamacare and I doubt that YOU have..

Get behind reform.. and demand the brightest and best tackle the issue.

 

The Constitution was designed and written to limit the power of the Federal government. Remember, at the time, the colonies were breaking away from an oppressive central government. It gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, it does not give the Congress the power to require that people engage in commerce. which is what Obamacare does. The Founders could not have foreseen the problems of today, but they did know that a large, centrally run government was detrimental to the well being of the population. Thus they wrote the Constitution in such a way that it restricts the powers of the central government.

 

"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."

That's the tenth amendment to the constitution. Do you see the power to enact Obamacare explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution? If not, it's unconstitutional as per the tenth amendment.

 

Is the right to Medicare specifically stated in the Const? Is the right to marry a person of a different race specifically stated? Is the right to equal school funding specifically stated in the Const?

Sounds to me like so much of what the SCOTUS has done over the years is unConstitutional per you. Wow, how can you live with yourself in a country so not following your version of the Const? I guess anarchists would rather follow some unbending version of the US Const than use it as a generla guideline to better the country. Sorry, your version was written while slavery was still considered a good idea and women considered chattle, your version, if it ever really was adminiustered, is long dead - thankfully.

 

I don't like the constitution and I don't think it's correct. This thread said that it wasn't unconstitutional, I was simply pointing out that it was as per the tenth amendment. It isn't my version, it's in plain English that it's unconstitutional.

 

All that might be true, but that still doesn't change the fact it doesn't give Congress the power to require people to engage in commerce or be punished. but it is a nice strawman argument.

 

I don't recall the Bill of Rights ordering the government to not do that.

 

Obamacare needs to be replaced with just one thought...If a Health insurance company wants to do business within the USA then they must include ALL those with pre-existing conditions and with no extra costs. Everything else must go. To mandate that all must have insurance is not constitutional and will be a real downer as far as job creation in the private sector is concerned. You think there is high unemployment now, wait till this thing kicks in. Employers cannot afford it. There have already been 2.5 million exemptions, so it is not realalistic to expect that it will be paid for. This is from an Independent-Libertarian. It may serve your purposes, but it will be just another nail in the coffin for the demise of the USA.

 

SMALL GOVT?????? You must be joking? Look at all the regulations on businesses since obama took office! All the TARPs and bailouts, which havent done main street a (*)(*)(*)(*) bit of good. You want small govt then cut the Dept of Ed and allow the states to handle their own educastion. Dismantle HLS and allow the FBI to do it's job. The dept of Trans and Commerce can also be dismantled for obvious reasons. The dept of defense could be cut by 50% and it would not hurt our National Defense. Nation building has never worked! Get rid of Foreign aid! It is insanity to 1st borrow the money just to give it away trying to buy friends. SS can be fixed if the monetary cap is removed! The dems in power care no more for this country than the reps in power.pThe tea Party and the wall st protesters have more in common than one may think. From 2008-2010 the Congress and the WH was controlled by the dems and all that was accomplished was to sack the Treasury and freeze any jobs crreation in the private sector. The dems do not want to cut any spending. The reps do not want any revenue increases. This is known as either a stalemate or SNAFU!!!

 

You have pointed out an interesting and important point that OWS and TP are very, very similar. Both oppose the bailouts.

 

Aside from the topic of the thread, I don't think the 9th and/or 10th makes soc med unConstitutional. Perhaps the one element of it that requires we buy ins, but then the rest stays and we don't pay.

As for the Constitution, we have to look at it in its time and context. The FF were slave owners, women didn't have basic rights, etc, so we need to look at it for the relic that it is.

 

Or we could follow conservative desires and reinstate slavery and end women's suffrage.

 

You have yet to establish why it's a strawman, so I'll let you enjoy your acquiescence.

I can agree that the US Const is violated with the requirement to buy HC ins, so we'll toss that and leave the rest. See, you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, meaning if 1 element is unConst the whole things goes away. Decisions often do not work that way, if the SCOTUS tosses the mandate, they will likely leave the rest alone, so you still lose.

 

There is a preexisting program in Obamacare now. It's a bridge to the program that kicks in in 2014. But of course, preexisters need to be included.

The mandate may be unConst, but your editorial that it will harm private sector jobs is totally unfounded. Please do not cite the Heritage Foundation, explain how that will be.

It won't tax employers. Jebus Christ, it will mandate the individual buy ins. How do you get to the employer? Unemployment is high due to low taxes and the recovering housing market, amongst other things.

Ind Libertarian, WTF kind of objectivity is that? A person who thinks all taxes are bad, police and fire depts should be dissolved, etc..... god, can you find a real source or better yet, explain this on your own using objective data?

 

Don't give them any ideas.

 

Oh, how were doing before Obama took office? Yea, so more insanity, as in doing the same and expecting a different result? Makes a lot of sense.

TARP was signed by GWB, paid for by Obama, but you blame Obama. Main street not helped? Only because you don't understand basic economic data or where to find it.

GDP: http://http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm



Unemp: http://http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

http://http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_207420_1318212667985.gif

And the DJIA is 3000 pts higher now than when Obama took office. So really, stimulus has done no good,huh?

Oh that would be nice, don't we already have enough dumb, pregnant teens in the south? Brown vs Board of Edu and others have centralized education to make it better and more fair; what do you think these neck states would do if allowed to cut education funds? Aren't we producing kids that are dumb enough to allow southern states and others to cut school funding?

And as soon as the first terrorist attmepts to atatck us, that GD Obama cut funding. I think we need both HLS and the FBI.

Obvious to you and the other deluded Libertarians.

Now that makes sense. We match the world in military spending, we can cut that in half and still be incredibly supreme.

True, but it is large part conservatives practicing their fiscal imperialism.

WHat cap? Elaborate your connecction between SS and the cap.

Yes and no. Dems care for the avergae guy, Reps care for the rich.

Nice try to get the blue collar Wall Street protestors into your corner. Wall Streeters love Repubs, Libertarians and **********s, they're all the same with a slightly different twist.

Only if you employ ignorance and forget that Obama inherited an unemp rate that grew 3% THE SINGLE YEAR BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE. The Dems held teh WH and Congress and what was averted were:

- Total bank collapse

- GDP 4 of 5 Q;s negative, 2 Qs later all +++

- Unemp skyrocketed 3% in the single year before Obama, he curbed it in 9 months and has shaded off 1% since.

- Stock market in freefall thru 8K, now it's >11k, was > 12K

BTW, it was 09-11, not 08 - 10. You conservatives seem to think this was a tiny little hiccup, this was the worst since the GD.

Wherever the truth there, Libertarians want chaos and never seem to present data to show how their lunacy has worked.

 

what a dumb assinine thread.

 

Conservatves are revisionists, they take the 2nd and omit things like, well regulated" and "militia" and focus on, "shall not be infringed." Neo-cons are usually the 'dumbest of the dumb.'

 

Until you win, you're the loser. I'm getting my 30-40k wrist surgery thx to Obamacare, doesn't it irk yoo?

 

No SCOTUS ruling, so all others are immaterial. Win then brag.

 

You might have a point with the forced premium, but then you have failed to make an agument on the rest, you just hope the justices use the same logic. They can affirm it all, throw it all out or do anything they want in parts. You make a claim on 1 tiny part and think you made a global point; create an argument for the whole thing or other elements.