• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling

I want car and home insurance requirements repealed. If requiring health care insurance is bad, then those must be bad as well.

I also want employers to stop offering health insurance and pension plans. Lets go all the way conservative, everybody is on his own. This is the onlly way to stop this creeping socialism that threatens to turn us into a nation of dependents, all sucking the teats of government.

So, is UtahBill being sarcastic, or not?

I know. It's BS that my state government is anti Obamacare but they won't repeal all the laws forcing our state residences to buy auto insurance.
 
I know. It's BS that my state government is anti Obamacare but they won't repeal all the laws forcing our state residences to buy auto insurance.

Why do you drag out that fallacy?
 
Lets for a moment say that SCOTUS does rule in favor of Obamacare because of the Commerce Clause. What then will they rule in favor of next? How about guns? Will it become illegal to buy guns since they are a health hazard? Will it become illegal to sell guns across state lines? Will the federal government stop allowing guns from being imported/exported in order to be sold to citizens? You'd still have your right to own a gun. That is all that the 2nd amendment gauruntees. It doesn't gauruntee your right to buy them or sell them however. Not if the commerce clause is allowed to regulate that you have to buy something anyways. Once that road is traveled there is basically no limit that the commerce clause cannot be used for.
 
[/COLOR][/FONT]
Read more @: Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling - CNN.com

I believe this is a huge victory for the Health Care law.. We desperately need reform and i believe this is just a small start. Although more hearings are in place i see this one as a victory. It will be interesting where they go from here.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
I think it's 3 to 1 one in terms of Court of Appeal decisions. Which seems about right to me. There is no question in my mind that this law is constitutional and will be ruled so by the Supreme Court (although it is equally clear that it will be a 5-4 decision). Whether it is a good idea or not is another story. It's up to Republicans and moderate Democrats to repeal it.
 
Lets for a moment say that SCOTUS does rule in favor of Obamacare because of the Commerce Clause. What then will they rule in favor of next? How about guns? Will it become illegal to buy guns since they are a health hazard? Will it become illegal to sell guns across state lines? Will the federal government stop allowing guns from being imported/exported in order to be sold to citizens? You'd still have your right to own a gun. That is all that the 2nd amendment gauruntees. It doesn't gauruntee your right to buy them or sell them however. Not if the commerce clause is allowed to regulate that you have to buy something anyways. Once that road is traveled there is basically no limit that the commerce clause cannot be used for.
You're going to have to do a little better to convince me that approval of the mandate to buy health insurance is going to effect, in any way, the legal analysis of whether or not the government can restrict the exercise of an explicit fundamental right like the right to bear arms.

If we had a constitutional amendment saying "the right of the people to refrain from buying health insurance shall not be infringed," this case would come out completely different. But we do not.

The fact is, the Commerce Clause is already hugely broad. It is finding the mandate unconstitutional that would drastically change just about every aspect of our government, not the other way around.
 
You're going to have to do a little better to convince me that approval of the mandate to buy health insurance is going to effect, in any way, the legal analysis of whether or not the government can restrict the exercise of an explicit fundamental right like the right to bear arms.

If we had a constitutional amendment saying "the right of the people to refrain from buying health insurance shall not be infringed," this case would come out completely different. But we do not.

The fact is, the Commerce Clause is already hugely broad. It is finding the mandate unconstitutional that would drastically change just about every aspect of our government, not the other way around.

Show me a constitutional clause that states "the right of the people to refrain from buying guns or to buy guns shall not be infringed".

The 2nd Amendment only gauruntees your right to bear arms. It says nothing about buying/selling guns.
 
Last edited:
Show me a constitutional clause that states "the right of the people to refrain from buying guns shall not be infringed".

The 2nd Amendment only gauruntees your right to bear arms. It says nothing about buying/selling guns.
It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you prohibit someone from buying a gun, you are infringing their right to keep and bear arms. I think that is pretty textbook.
 
It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you prohibit someone from buying a gun, you are infringing their right to keep and bear arms. I think that is pretty textbook.

No you're not. You can already have a gun or you can have a gun given to you. Besides, buying a gun and owning a gun is two different things. Example, a felon is not allowed to buy guns though they can certainly own one.
 
No you're not. You can already have a gun or you can have a gun given to you. Besides, buying a gun and owning a gun is two different things.
Not even literalist conservatives are that exacting.
 
No you're not. You can already have a gun or you can have a gun given to you. Besides, buying a gun and owning a gun is two different things. Example, a felon is not allowed to buy guns though they can certainly own one.

How are they supposed to get to that point other than already having one or getting one from a friend that already had one? What are they supposed to be like a felon and break the law to get one? That is just stupid.
 
Not even literalist conservatives are that exacting.

Really? There are Constitutional literalists that believe that the 2nd amendment means that the only ones that have a right to bear arms are those in the militia. There are gun advocates right now that would sieze upon any chance to ban guns period. This could be an avenue for them.

Whether you want to admit it or not the way that the Commerce clause is being treated right now will open a lot of doors for restricting rights. Especially under the guise of health concerns.
 
How are they supposed to get to that point other than already having one or getting one from a friend that already had one? What are they supposed to be like a felon and break the law to get one? That is just stupid.

Do you think it would matter to the ones that made the law or supported it? Again, buying a gun and owning a gun are two different things.
 
Do you think it would matter to the ones that made the law or supported it? Again, buying a gun and owning a gun are two different things.

Sure, but It basically blocks people from getting to the freedom by blocking access to that freedom. It feels like one of those feel good laws that mean nothing. You can do this, but to get there that is illegal. We have enough of that stupid crap.
 
Sure, but It basically blocks people from getting to the freedom by blocking access to that freedom. It feels like one of those feel good laws that mean nothing. You can do this, but to get there that is illegal. We have enough of that stupid crap.

You're not blocked from getting a gun. You're just blocked from buying a gun. Again, you can already have a gun or have one given to you. You could prolly even leave the country to buy one and bring it back. You just can't buy one in the US. Remember, the law would just ban people from selling guns. It wouldn't really ban people from buying them.
 
Last edited:
You're not blocked from getting a gun. You're just blocked from buying a gun. Again, you can already have a gun or have one given to you. You could prolly even leave the country to buy one and bring it back. You just can't buy one in the US. Remember, the law would just ban people from selling guns. It wouldn't really ban people from buying them.

How would I get a gun if I didn't want to leave the country? How would everyday people get access? If people can't buy what they want they will just get it illegally and that will just raise crime rates including murder. Not everyone can just pick up and leave the country all the time. What you're saying just isn't that reasonable.
 
Why do you drag out that fallacy?

It's the state government, forcing you to buy something from the private sector. It's stupid and it's not a fallacy. It's a multi billion dollar industry backed by the government, and you're punished if you don't participate in it despite having no reason to participate in it. I have never cause an auto accident, but everybody I know involved in a wreck just pays for damages out of their own pocket instead of reporting the accident to their insurance co because they don't want their ****ing policy to go up. It's so stupid.

At least with healthcare, you get a benefit... with auto insurance, you just a proof of purchase to show the government so they don't throw your ass in jail. And never mind the BS that somebody else pointed out, that you're only required to purchase it to protect other people. The government can't force us to protect others in such a fashion. People still get hurt in auto accidents despite the insurance industry. The insurance industry is simply there to protect us for damages in case we do cause injury, and if we do, they are likely to raise our premiums and drop us because the industry is actually about making PROFIT, not protecting us from harm. If one doesn't have insurance, the court can still function and handle all claims accordingly.

Buying it should be an option.
 
It's the state government, forcing you to buy something from the private sector. It's stupid and it's not a fallacy. It's a multi billion dollar industry backed by the government, and you're punished if you don't participate in it despite having no reason to participate in it. I have never cause an auto accident, but everybody I know involved in a wreck just pays for damages out of their own pocket instead of reporting the accident to their insurance co because they don't want their ****ing policy to go up. It's so stupid.

Do you have to own car insurance if you own a car??

No. The only time you have to have any insurance is if you drive on roads...who owns the roads? The government. It is a regulatory requirement to use public road ways. If you want to drive on a private road without insurance, have at it.

At least with healthcare, you get a benefit... with auto insurance, you just a proof of purchase to show the government so they don't throw your ass in jail. And never mind the BS that somebody else pointed out, that you're only required to purchase it to protect other people. The government can't force us to protect others in such a fashion. People still get hurt in auto accidents despite the insurance industry. The insurance industry is simply there to protect us for damages in case we do cause injury, and if we do, they are likely to raise our premiums and drop us because the industry is actually about making PROFIT, not protecting us from harm. If one doesn't have insurance, the court can still function and handle all claims accordingly.

Buying it should be an option.

It is. The option is buy it or don't drive.
 
Lets for a moment say that SCOTUS does rule in favor of Obamacare because of the Commerce Clause. What then will they rule in favor of next? How about guns? Will it become illegal to buy guns since they are a health hazard? Will it become illegal to sell guns across state lines? Will the federal government stop allowing guns from being imported/exported in order to be sold to citizens? You'd still have your right to own a gun. That is all that the 2nd amendment gauruntees. It doesn't gauruntee your right to buy them or sell them however. Not if the commerce clause is allowed to regulate that you have to buy something anyways. Once that road is traveled there is basically no limit that the commerce clause cannot be used for.

That's a really far jump. Plus liberals actually like guns. How else are they going to bring about the socialist revolution? :roll:
 
No you're not. You can already have a gun or you can have a gun given to you. Besides, buying a gun and owning a gun is two different things. Example, a felon is not allowed to buy guns though they can certainly own one.

Then just give him a gun for free... :shrug:
 
Do you have to own car insurance if you own a car??

No. The only time you have to have any insurance is if you drive on roads...who owns the roads? The government. It is a regulatory requirement to use public road ways. If you want to drive on a private road without insurance, have at it.



It is. The option is buy it or don't drive.

When the government provides us equally accessible transportation options, such as high speed rail or even an equal amount of private roads lol :roll:... then I'll agree with you 100%. But as of now, many many people don't have any other option to travel to and from work on a daily basis.
 
When the government provides us equally accessible transportation options, such as high speed rail or even an equal amount of private roads lol :roll:... then I'll agree with you 100%. But as of now, many many people don't have any other option to travel to and from work on a daily basis.

Why is it that the big solution to transportation problems trains? Is it just me or is that like going back in time but with a more powerful motor? How many people use the trains now? Not nearly enough, and how many actually want their travel schedule controlled by the state, Really? Its just stupid wrapped in stupid with a big ugly bow on top. I would like to go where I'm going whenever I damn well please, but with trains you don't exactly get that. It's just stupid.
 
Why is it that the big solution to transportation problems trains? Is it just me or is that like going back in time but with a more powerful motor? How many people use the trains now? Not nearly enough, and how many actually want their travel schedule controlled by the state, Really? Its just stupid wrapped in stupid with a big ugly bow on top. I would like to go where I'm going whenever I damn well please, but with trains you don't exactly get that. It's just stupid.

Public transport is just another option. It's not like it would replace all other transportation. You'd still have a choice. I used to live in Europe and I actually miss not having the responsibility of having to own a car and worry about the maintenance on it, oil changes, break downs, tires, auto insurance, parking, licensing, etc.
 
Public transport is just another option. It's not like it would replace all other transportation. You'd still have a choice. I used to live in Europe and I actually miss not having the responsibility of having to own a car and worry about the maintenance on it, oil changes, break downs, tires, auto insurance, parking, licensing, etc.

Trains are not an opinion. That is the problem. They are expensive and hole on budgets, they go almost no where, and their schedules limit their use. They are useless. Do you have any idea what a Amtrak train ticket should actually cost? Lets just say this, you wouldn't be able to afford it. What do you think a high speed rail ticket would cost? Think about that. The tracks need more care, the trains are far more sensitive so there needs to be constant maintenance to keep safety high. The ticket prices would be out of this world. The government would have do the same bogus trick they do with Amtrak and keep ticket prices lower than they should be and take up the rest of the tab or pay it all. Its just not affordable and not that desirable either.
 
Trains are not an opinion. That is the problem. They are expensive and hole on budgets, they go almost no where, and their schedules limit their use. They are useless. Do you have any idea what a Amtrak train ticket should actually cost? Lets just say this, you wouldn't be able to afford it. What do you think a high speed rail ticket would cost? Think about that. The tracks need more care, the trains are far more sensitive so there needs to be constant maintenance to keep safety high. The ticket prices would be out of this world. The government would have do the same bogus trick they do with Amtrak and keep ticket prices lower than they should be and take up the rest of the tab or pay it all. Its just not affordable and not that desirable either.

Trains make sense in some locations and not in others. Amtrak's high speed line in the NE is profitable. In the right location and with the right design, trains are the most efficient form of transporation available. They are hugely successful in Europe.
 
Back
Top Bottom