• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

LOL, How did I know you would be the first one to make this argument? If you LIVE in a state and participate in its commerce, you are subject to the law. I love how you tea baggers twist and turn the constitution to your personal needs.

Color-coded for self-ownage.
 
LOL, How did I know you would be the first one to make this argument? If you LIVE in a state and participate in its commerce, you are subject to the law. I love how you tea baggers twist and turn the constitution to your personal needs.

tea bagger? LOL, so until the FDR lapdogs twisted the commerce clause, no such authority existed. This clause was to allow congress to prevent one state from interfering with commerce between others. It had nothing to do with regulating say firearms or wheat or medical marijuana or making me buy healthcare.

remind me of your law degree?
 
No.

Because they could impose a national health care system that is purely government controlled, thus like social security, is government forced on the people. Whereas what they are doing now is requiring people to buy from private industry.

Sorry, but I don't see the logic. Government could impose the cost of universal healthcare on everyone via a tax, and then use the proceeds to purchase private insurance for everyone ... but they can't require the 2% of adults who can afford insurance but who won't buy it to pay a relatively small fine?
 
Sorry, but I don't see the logic. Government could impose the cost of universal healthcare on everyone via a tax, and then use the proceeds to purchase private insurance for everyone ... but they can't require the 2% of adults who can afford insurance but who won't buy it to pay a relatively small fine?

Where's the disconnect?

I mean, even if your first premise were true and the government had the power to buy private insurance for everyone. Such a power would be entirely unrelated to a power to require people to purchase anything.

Besides, we can play that game all day. "If the government can do X, then sure it can do Y." You can put anything you want in X and Y.
 
I have good insurance because I worked hard and got a good job that has good insurance I was born to rich parents who put me through the finest schools and left me a shedload of money.

Fixed it for ya'.
 
Sigh....you sure seem pretty conservative to be an independent, you are WAY WAY off base...im going to judge you based on your last few posts just like you are judging me. Turd daniel.

I'm sure you believe anyone that is not left of you is conservative.

That is flawed logic like everything else I have seen you post.
 
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

that is correct. and so, for example, if Pennsylvania attempts to put a tariff on goods from Ohio, the Federal government has the right to step in.

but where does the government have the right to force you to engage in commerce?
 
Fixed it for ya'.

not really - he get's insurance through his work. So do I, and my parents are hardly rich. My insurance is pretty good in what it will cover and only poor in that it is incredibly slow and bureaucratic.
 
So you are disregarding his word as to his own efforts in life? Lovely.

many in the extreme left seem to think that anyone who had industrious parents never worked a day in their lives

in reality, people tend to be like their parents-those who have hard working well educated parents tend to be that way, those whose parents were sloths and lived off the government tit tend to be teat sucklers themselves.
 
bluntly, yes. Since "provid[ing] for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" is an Enumerated Power

I see enumerated "provide for arming". I don't see any enumeration of "force them to buy their own weapons and gear".

Just as it is enumerated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but there's no enumeration of any insurance mandate.
 
I see enumerated "provide for arming". I don't see any enumeration of "force them to buy their own weapons and gear".

Just as it is enumerated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but there's no enumeration of any insurance mandate.

defend wickard as proper constitutional interpretation
 
I see enumerated "provide for arming". I don't see any enumeration of "force them to buy their own weapons and gear".

Citizens with their own weapons and gear is the definition of a militia.


Just as it is enumerated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but there's no enumeration of any insurance mandate.

No, and it's not "regulation," either. :shrug:
 
So you are disregarding his word as to his own efforts in life? Lovely.

No, I'm making the point that some people, like TD, were given every advantage in life to help them succeed, whereas many other people didn't have such advantages given to them. I was also fortunate insofar as I was born to well educated, reasonably well-to-do parents who provided me with a good education. But I'm cognizant of and thankful for the advantages that I had and I don't look down on those who were less fortunate -- or imagine myself so far superior to them.

Undeserved arrogance is an unfortunate side effect of generational affirmative action.
 
No, I'm making the point that some people, like TD, were given every advantage in life to help them succeed, whereas many other people didn't have such advantages given to them. I was also fortunate insofar as I was born to well educated, reasonably well-to-do parents who provided me with a good education. But I'm cognizant of and thankful for the advantages that I had and I don't look down on those who were less fortunate -- or imagine myself so far superior to them.

Undeserved arrogance is an unfortunate side effect of generational affirmative action.

this line of argument is irrelevant to the issue.

what you were born with or earned through life has no bearing on the the issue of whether Obamacare will pass muster before SCOTUS.
 
this line of argument is irrelevant to the issue.

what you were born with or earned through life has no bearing on the the issue of whether Obamacare will pass muster before SCOTUS.

I didn't start that line of argument, I just responded to it.

"your life is not my responsibility and the government shouldn't force me to be charitable to you. That being said I am a strong supporter of private charity and your snide comments are just plain ignorant. my son was born with a birth defect and has had 17 surgeries. I have good insurance because I worked hard and got a good job that has good insurance."

--TurtleDude
 
:roll:

Study the term in the English tradition starting with the Anglo-Saxon fyrds. (Merriam-Webster. Puh-leeze.)

Yah, what does Merriam Webster know about definitions? :lol:
 
SypherAl wrote:
I know enough to understand that the Supreme Court justices are the real "Kings and Queens" of America who have the final say on ALL matters...America is not as big of a democracy as you think buddy, Everything is decided on personal beliefs and returned favors, the truth is hard to accept at times.


There is a conspiracy theory section on this board-that sort of stuff might fit in better there.

Just sayin...........

Oddly you've said almost exactly the same thing about the Supreme Court's jurisprudence during FDR's presidency.

Just sayin....
 
Yah, what does Merriam Webster know about definitions? :lol:

:shrug: Their definition of "militia" is quite incomplete. The "puh-leeze" is that you think it has some authoritative weight on terms of art used in the Constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom