Thread: Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional

Originally Posted by Bigfoot 88

Basically, ObamaCare can be defeated using two interpretations of the commerce clause:

1-The correct version: As originally written, commerce meant trade and regulate meant to make regular. Congress was given the authority to remove restrictions of trade that states put on other states. ObamaCare has nothing to do with internal trade restrictions, therefore it is un-Constitutional.

2-The incorrect version: Congress has the power to regulate commerce; the activity of buying and selling goods. ObamaCare is regulating inactivity therefore it is un-Constitutional.

It will likely be defeated by the 2nd argument, but it should be defeated by the 1st argument.

Expect you are ignoring the case were a man was forced to stop growing his own wheat

The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

That would be far perferable to the mandate.

It isn't any different than the mandate lol

The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business

Originally Posted by xpiher

It isn't any different than the mandate lol

The difference is that private individuals do not have to pay money to private companies. That is a huge difference. If an individual is required by our government to buy something from a private company then the government can require you to buy from other private buisnesses. With a tax you pay the government and go to what ever private buisness that you want, or not, no interference.

Originally Posted by xpiher

The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business

Silly saying. Ever hear of the saying "You scratch my back I scratch yours"? It applies to politicians of all stripes far more accurately than your saying here.

Edit note: BTW...if you go by your saying...what would politicians that owe a buisness do to pay back that "favor"? Think in terms of the mandate and maybe you'll see the difference.

Originally Posted by xpiher

Expect you are ignoring the case were a man was forced to stop growing his own wheat

Which was a decision that did not, in any way, align with the original intent. It was activism and an overreach by government.

Just my opinion, but a better argument could be made to find the mandate unconstitutional under the Tenth amendment.

Originally Posted by mac

Well, how do you know it's there if it's invisible?

It's either invisible or they're hiding one from an alternative universe somewhere. I only know of one US Constitution.

Originally Posted by Bigfoot 88

President and Constitutional Law professor Obama has informed us that the Supreme Court has never struck down a law passed by Congress. He is off the mark roughly 200 times.

Except thats not what he said.

Originally Posted by 99percenter

Except thats not what he said.

Can you paraphrase what he said any better?

Originally Posted by Arbo

Which was a decision that did not, in any way, align with the original intent. It was activism and an overreach by government.

agreed, but it is now part of our law.

Originally Posted by xpiher

Expect you are ignoring the case were a man was forced to stop growing his own wheat

The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business

How was I ignoring that case?