Louisiana Legislature Floating Bill Making Obamacare Illegal in State

[drebo]

I'm not a Constitutional expert but to me it doesn't make sense in my mind. As of right now the Federal Government believes Marijuana is bad and should be illegal.

Let me think of analogy, the Federal Government is your Mom. The states are your uncles/teachers/whatever and your just a boy. Should your Uncle/Teacher/whatever have say over what your Mother thinks you can do? No.

That, and it just seems absurd for Federal Government to get spanked around like this aren't they suppose to be the ones in charge?

The analogy does not work.

The United States of America was concieved as a federation of independent states. The Federal government was supposed to be responsible for maintaining interstate commerce and foreign policy. Those are the only roles of the Federal government, as defined in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that any role not explicitly defined in the Constitution as the jurisdiction of the Federal government falls to the states to regulate. Ultimately, citizens of the US are beholden to their state laws first and federal laws second. This is why there is no federal identification system and why the subject is so touchy.

So, no, the Federal government is not like my mother and the states are not like my extended relatives.

The Federal Government exists to protect us from foreign threats. The states were made sovereign precisely to protect us from a big, centralized government...which is exactly what we came here to flee. Remember, the Revolutionary War started in large part due to a body who had no idea about the conditions of the colonies determining policy for those colonies. Likewise, people in Washington DC have no clue what conditions are like in California, and thus have no background with which to provide us with policy. That is why we have State governments.

Proponents of the so-called "living constitution" will claim that the founders expected the Federal Government to eventually become a centralized monolithic government, but that's horse shit. Many of the drafters of the Constituion and many of the early presidents wrote specifically that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted literally, and none of the policies contained there-in are as yet outdated. They did, in their genius, leave open a method to change the Constitution, and if the Federal Government wants to expand their power, they must do it with a three-forths agreement by the states.

The bottom line is that the states give power to the Federal Government and they can take it away. State laws supercede any Federal Law except a constitutional amendment.

 

[drebo]

This same type of thing happened with Medicare in the 1960's. States that were convinced Medicare was some bad thing,

Medicare IS a bad thing. It's almost single-handedly responsible for the ballooning cost of health care in our country, and it's one of the primary reasons why health insurance is needed for preventative care in the first place.

Without sliding in to predetermined-outcome fallacy, one could potentially say that without Medicare we would not need "healthcare reform" in the first place because we would not need health insurance companies.

 

[Vic]

Medicare IS a bad thing. It's almost single-handedly responsible for the ballooning cost of health care in our country, and it's one of the primary reasons why health insurance is needed for preventative care in the first place.

Without sliding in to predetermined-outcome fallacy, one could potentially say that without Medicare we would not need "healthcare reform" in the first place because we would not need health insurance companies.

Health insurers existed before medicare. Employer-paid health benefits for most Americans have been the norm since WWII.

 

[drebo]

Health insurers existed before medicare. Employer-paid health benefits for most Americans have been the norm since WWII.

I never disputed that. The fact is, though, that before Medicare existed, health insurance was confined to major medical and not needed for regular preventative care. Similar to homeowners, renters, or car insurance...you used it when there was a catastrophe, not when your porch needs sweeping, your potted plants get stolen, or your oil needs changing.

Medicare is what changed that by offering an approved maximum payout per treatment. When doctors saw this maximum, they charged it to everyone. Reasonable compensation for services rendered went out the window in favor of government-controlled prices. And we all remember how well those work for farmers.

 

[Vic]

Sorry, guy, I'm not following you... my parents had Kaiser when I was a kid.

Here, read this.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I want whatever you are smoking

Nick: As much as you want to disagree with him you know it is likely to be true. My father once told me; "Never turn down a free lunch." Places like LA and MS and AL have people that would truly benefit from a nationalized health care plan, and would scream bloody murder when they found out their neighboring states were getting money and care and they weren't.

You are right Patranus, there are probably very few rednecks in MA. There are an overabundance of Massholes though . As for why Brown won; Coakley is an idiot, and ran a horrible campaign. Even with that the results were fairly close.
I don't really care one way or another. Life will go on no matter if the bill passes or fails.

 

[Tab]

The analogy does not work.

The United States of America was concieved as a federation of independent states. The Federal government was supposed to be responsible for maintaining interstate commerce and foreign policy. Those are the only roles of the Federal government, as defined in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that any role not explicitly defined in the Constitution as the jurisdiction of the Federal government falls to the states to regulate. Ultimately, citizens of the US are beholden to their state laws first and federal laws second. This is why there is no federal identification system and why the subject is so touchy.

So, no, the Federal government is not like my mother and the states are not like my extended relatives.

The Federal Government exists to protect us from foreign threats. The states were made sovereign precisely to protect us from a big, centralized government...which is exactly what we came here to flee. Remember, the Revolutionary War started in large part due to a body who had no idea about the conditions of the colonies determining policy for those colonies. Likewise, people in Washington DC have no clue what conditions are like in California, and thus have no background with which to provide us with policy. That is why we have State governments.

Proponents of the so-called "living constitution" will claim that the founders expected the Federal Government to eventually become a centralized monolithic government, but that's horse shit. Many of the drafters of the Constituion and many of the early presidents wrote specifically that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted literally, and none of the policies contained there-in are as yet outdated. They did, in their genius, leave open a method to change the Constitution, and if the Federal Government wants to expand their power, they must do it with a three-forths agreement by the states.

The bottom line is that the states give power to the Federal Government and they can take it away. State laws supercede any Federal Law except a constitutional amendment.

Interesting, but so how can the United States make a law saying Marijuana is illegal? How can the Federal Law Enforcement legally arrest dealers and users in state that have it legal?

 

[drebo]

Interesting, but so how can the United States make a law saying Marijuana is illegal? How can the Federal Law Enforcement legally arrest dealers and users in state that have it legal?

States do not HAVE to challenge those laws (by which I mean make laws in contrast to the Federal ones). But, by the same token, they don't have to accept them either.

I believe that in general, states which have legalized marijuana have done so by legalizing amounts well under the amounts that are classified by federal laws. As such, they're not directly spurning the federal laws. As such, if a dealer, licensed or unlicensed,

Additionally, if the marijuana crosses state lines, then it is under federal jurisdiction.

I have not studied the marijuana laws closely, as I have never smoked, nor have I ever had the desire, to smoke pot.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Nick: As much as you want to disagree with him you know it is likely to be true. My father once told me; "Never turn down a free lunch." Places like LA and MS and AL have people that would truly benefit from a nationalized health care plan, and would scream bloody murder when they found out their neighboring states were getting money and care and they weren't.

You are right Patranus, there are probably very few rednecks in MA. There are an overabundance of Massholes though . As for why Brown won; Coakley is an idiot, and ran a horrible campaign. Even with that the results were fairly close.
I don't really care one way or another. Life will go on no matter if the bill passes or fails.

people who think like your father are why we are in the gov't mess we're in today. There is no such thing as a free lunch btw.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Nick: As much as you want to disagree with him you know it is likely to be true. My father once told me; "Never turn down a free lunch." Places like LA and MS and AL have people that would truly benefit from a nationalized health care plan, and would scream bloody murder when they found out their neighboring states were getting money and care and they weren't.

You are right Patranus, there are probably very few rednecks in MA. There are an overabundance of Massholes though . As for why Brown won; Coakley is an idiot, and ran a horrible campaign. Even with that the results were fairly close.
I don't really care one way or another. Life will go on no matter if the bill passes or fails.

people who think like your father are why we are in the gov't mess we're in today. There is no such thing as a free lunch btw.

It is free to the eater as long as someone else pays for it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Best thing to do is split the Red States and Blue States

 

[Tab]

States do not HAVE to challenge those laws (by which I mean make laws in contrast to the Federal ones). But, by the same token, they don't have to accept them either.

I believe that in general, states which have legalized marijuana have done so by legalizing amounts well under the amounts that are classified by federal laws. As such, they're not directly spurning the federal laws. As such, if a dealer, licensed or unlicensed,

Additionally, if the marijuana crosses state lines, then it is under federal jurisdiction.

I have not studied the marijuana laws closely, as I have never smoked, nor have I ever had the desire, to smoke pot.

Interesting. Thanks for looking into my analogy makes a hell of a lot more sense now.

 

[Patranus]

Additionally, if the marijuana crosses state lines, then it is under federal jurisdiction..

Under the original intent of the commerce clause, it would fall under federal jurisdiction AS it crossed state lines. After all, the intent of the commerce clause was so state A couldn't tax state B at rate X and tax state C at rate Y.

Now, because of those wonderful "progressives" durning the FDR administration, the interpretation was changed from its long standing meaning (precedent) to not only include the act of interstate commerce but also the lack of interstate commerce.

 

[drebo]

Under the original intent of the commerce clause, it would fall under federal jurisdiction AS it crossed state lines. After all, the intent of the commerce clause was so state A couldn't tax state B at rate X and tax state C at rate Y.

Now, because of those wonderful "progressives" durning the FDR administration, the interpretation was changed from its long standing meaning (precedent) to not only include the act of interstate commerce but also the lack of interstate commerce.

Well, we all know that so-called "progressives" are anti-progress when it relates to anything remotely resembing the economy or individual/corporate profit.

 

[Rainsford]

Hey, I'm all for state sovereignty, and alternatives to Obama's Health Care plan, whether it's at the state or federal level. But here's my big problem with that idea...nobody else wants to fix the damn problem.

Republicans throwing a hissy fit about "socialism" but proposing absolutely no alternative solution? States railing against federal interference but refusing to fix the problem themselves? Their arguments about complete bullshit as long as they just want to complain. THAT'S the easy part...how about some alternative ideas, eh?

 

[Rainsford]

Under the original intent of the commerce clause, it would fall under federal jurisdiction AS it crossed state lines. After all, the intent of the commerce clause was so state A couldn't tax state B at rate X and tax state C at rate Y.

Now, because of those wonderful "progressives" durning the FDR administration, the interpretation was changed from its long standing meaning (precedent) to not only include the act of interstate commerce but also the lack of interstate commerce.

Yes, while conservatives have been exceptionally good defenders of limited federal power...

Face it, government at all levels wants as much power for themselves as possible...regardless of party. When they bring up left vs right politics, it's only to justify something they wanted to do already...and something that's easily discarded when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[nobodyknows]

Who better than the States to keep the fed govt in check?

The citizen voters.

Otherwise you just replace one out of control central goverment with an out of control state goverment. The next thing you know two states will declare war on each other.

 

[drebo]

Yes, while conservatives have been exceptionally good defenders of limited federal power...

Face it, government at all levels wants as much power for themselves as possible...regardless of party. When they bring up left vs right politics, it's only to justify something they wanted to do already...and something that's easily discarded when it becomes inconvenient.

That's why I'm a big proponent of filibuster...whether it be D's against R's or R's against D's. Anything that prevents the power grab is a good thing in my book.

 

[nick1985]

Nick: As much as you want to disagree with him you know it is likely to be true.

No, it is not.

 

[Craig234]

Well, we all know that so-called "progressives" are anti-progress when it relates to anything remotely resembing the economy or individual/corporate profit.

Lies. Idiotic lies.

 

[Chaotic42]

My father once told me; "Never turn down a free lunch."

And my father told me to never take anything that I didn't earn.

 

[Chaotic42]

Best thing to do is split the Red States and Blue States

As bad as things are right now, we're nowhere near the country splitting.