• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

March 21 2010 Dawn of a New America

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nick1985 said:
Still awaiting your answer nobodyknows, stop dodging it to toss personal attacks.
Click to expand...

LOL, pick one:

You don't even have a question worth answering IMO.

Perhaps you need to call the SCOTUS up and tell them, apparently they haven't noticed what's going on?? 😀😀😀

Since I'm too dumb to answer your question about the 10th amendment, feel freee to answer it yourself.
 
Throckmorton said:
So what you are saying is that the federal government regulating healthcare is unconstitutional? Wow, then Medicare must be REALLY REALLY unconstitutional!!
Click to expand...

I think the unconstitutional part is not so much the regulation, but the individual mandate part.

I don't see where, apart from the oft-abused general welfare clause, a constitutional basis for the requirement of the acquisition of a commodity, under penalty, is protected.

What else could be mandated if this is constitutional? Housing? Popcorn?

I seriously hope 33 states get pissed off enough to force a constitutional amendment.
 
Atreus21 said:
I think the unconstitutional part is not so much the regulation, but the individual mandate part.

I don't see where, apart from the oft-abused general welfare clause, a constitutional basis for the requirement of the acquisition of a commodity, under penalty, is protected.

What else could be mandated if this is constitutional? Housing? Popcorn?

I seriously hope 33 states get pissed off enough to force a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Oh goodie, then we can have slavery again too???
 
nobodyknows said:
If it were left entirely up to the states, some would probably still have slavery. That's why the 10th doesn't really apply here. One country needs one health care plan, not 50.
Click to expand...

No one is advocating leaving anything up to the states exclusively. Or at least I am not.

My opinion is that if this legislation is an example of politicians running rough-shod over the will of their constituents, that there are tools built in to override them, and that they should not fear to use them.

Also, equating slavery to health care is hardly fair. The lack of health care does not so grossly abridge one's liberty. Slavery is to liberty what murder is to life. Health care, in the end, is secondary.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Sounds to me like you have nothing to whine about so why are you whining like a baby?


blanghorst said:
I do NOT want the government telling me what insurance to buy, for example, nor do I want them involved in any of those decisions.

I do NOT want the government providing me with services at the expense of others. In other words, I want the government to leave me the hell alone and let me live my life.

A government safety net? Fine, I agree, people fall into hard times and we need a safety net for those guys as long as they were productive members of society, disabled, or children.

Government providing things from cradle to grave? NO.
Click to expand...

You and your buds blew that when you let the Corporations exclude non-rich citizens.

You think it was right for them to say you rich you live, poor you die?

If you believe that you have no business living here in this country.
 
dmcowen674 said:
You and your buds blew that when you let the Corporations exclude non-rich citizens.

You think it was right for them to say you rich you live, poor you die?

If you believe that you have no business living here in this country.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, let's clear some things up:

1. You voted for Bush. Therefore, you are part of the problem according to your logic. So instead of dodging and skipping questions conveniently, own up to it you moron. You voted for the party that you claim is the problem. Great job!

2. What part of "safety net" don't you understand, you idiot? I firmly support a safety net for people. I firmly support catastrophic health care for EVERY American. I support health care reform that lowers costs. I do NOT support cradle to grave health care which provides everything from spending money on doctor visits every time little Timmy bruises his knee to helping little Billy any time he stubs his toe.

You are the deranged lunatic that has no reason to be here. Please leave.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
Also, equating slavery to health care is hardly fair. The lack of health care does not so grossly abridge one's liberty. Slavery is to liberty what murder is to life. Health care, in the end, is secondary.
Click to expand...

No to mention the obvious, of course, but slavery is prohibited by the 13th Amendment which can't be simply "ignored" or voted away by "evil" Republicans.
 
Last edited:
nobodyknows said:
If it were left entirely up to the states, some would probably still have slavery. That's why the 10th doesn't really apply here. One country needs one health care plan, not 50.
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment doesn't apply to slavery for one reason and one reason alone -- the 13th Amendment. Read the 10th and then the 13th. The 10th does not apply to slavery not because slavery is evil (and it is), but the power to enforce a ban on slavery was explictly given to Congress in the 13th Amendment. That satisfies the enumeration of powers defined in the 10th.

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Click to expand...

The same could be done with health care to avoid any messy Constitutional questions. Of course, a Constitutional amendment to give Congress explicit authority to create a national health care plan under their direct supervision would never be ratified, and they know it.
 
Last edited:
dmcowen674 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Sounds to me like you have nothing to whine about so why are you whining like a baby?

You and your buds blew that when you let the Corporations exclude non-rich citizens.

You think it was right for them to say you rich you live, poor you die?

If you believe that you have no business living here in this country.
Click to expand...

My offer still stands....a one way ticket for you to Somalia any time you want it.
 
Throckmorton said:
So what you are saying is that the federal government regulating healthcare is unconstitutional? Wow, then Medicare must be REALLY REALLY unconstitutional!!
Click to expand...

Regulating health care? Define that please, as *regulation* is probably not unconstitutional depending on what you mean (ie, commerce clause). Creating a national health care plan via legislation, forcing people to purchase insurance from a private entity or face penalties otherwise? That is for the courts to decide, but anyone arguing it is constitutional by using the "general welfare" clause is quite incorrect if you read what Jefferson and Madison said the intention of that phrase was. By simple application of the 10th, it would seem to be unconstitutional but the commerce clause has been used to circumvent that in the past. At this point, who knows for sure, but my suspicion is that the legal challenges will be shot down.

None of us (to my knowledge at least) are constitutional attorneys, so we're all speculating anyway. I've seen actual legal authorities going both ways on whether or not it is actually constitutional, so I guess we can pull up a chair, have a beer, and watch the fireworks. 🙂
 
Last edited:
blanghorst said:
The 10th Amendment doesn't apply to slavery for one reason and one reason alone -- the 13th Amendment. Read the 10th and then the 13th. The 10th does not apply to slavery not because slavery is evil (and it is), but the power to enforce a ban on slavery was explictly given to Congress in the 13th Amendment. That satisfies the enumeration of powers defined in the 10th.
Click to expand...
But as we all know, the South found another way to discriminate against them.
 
blanghorst said:
Dave talks a big game, but when it is time to back up the talk with action, the only action he takes is to run....far, far away.
Click to expand...

Why would I have to take any action from what a politically biased site has to say?


file.php
 
her209 said:
Sure it is. Its under the guise of "states rights."
Click to expand...

You are correct, I suppose it was perfectly legal to do what those states did due to the separation of powers. That, however, does not indicate that the separation of powers between the federal government and state governments is not correct; it just means that maybe the amendment didn't go far enough. Agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top