ObamaCare unconstitutional?? lmao!

A Constitutional expert you are not.

The Federal government is one of enumerated powers, meaning it cannot do anything unless it is specifically and explicitly allowed for by the Constitution, otherwise, where would it derive such an authority from? The fairy godmother?

 

In other words, laws have to be explicit, not implied. Which is what I said.

 

No, that is not what you said. I said that unless the Const clearly outlines a power for the Federal government, the Federal government does not have grounds to implement it.

This is of course a Constitutional argument, however I do not think that clinging to a 200+ year old document is exactly ideal.

 

Good ideas do not have expiration dates. The Constitution is the legal codification of a timeless philosophy that allows for change and adaptation via democratic processes.

 

I would agree to that, however there are many who believe it is a document that should not be changed, with I disagree with.

 

And the 10th Amendment clearly states that the powers not explicitly delegated to Congress are reserved to the States. And the Constitution says that Congress has the right to REGULATE commerce. It does not give Congress the power to require people to engage in commerce. And Obamacare requires people to engage in commerce.

 

The Founding Fathers left an Amendment process for a reason.

However, that doesn't mean that core principles held within the Constitution should be subject to that Amendment process; the process was primarily meant to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers could not think of everything.

But what they did think of should not be contradicted.

 

Depends on what they thought and what benefits can come from contradicting their thoughts.

 

There is a big difference between amending the Constitution and violating it as Obamacare does.

 

Then you can surely produce an example?

 

rofl at the right wing extremists

do you guys have an idea how many laws there are?

according to you guys, 90% of them are unconstitutional! lmao!

 

OMG! So nearly everyone showed where you were in error, so your first indiginant comment was of extremism?????

How liberal of you!

There is nothing unconstitutional about laws. Now one said nor made such a claim. We are A NATION OF LAWS!Allowing for the federal government to supercede state law by mandating everyone buy health care!

 

Are you aware that it is possible to have laws that are unconstitutional? The fact that a law is passed does not automatically mean it is Constitutional. The Constitution supersedes all other laws.

That is kinda the point of the Judicial branch. In between LYAO, when you can take a breath, you should probably educate yourself on the legislative and judicial processes.

 

If you'd ever read the Constitution you would see that it very explicitly states what protections we have as citizens from the government and then states, quite specifically what the government can do.

The government cannot seize my property without compensation and no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to post a shopping list with which I must comply.

Had schools quit teaching govenment before you got to junior high? When you finish LYAO, do a little reading.

 

I think the important question here is:

How much should we care about a document written 200 years ago by people who never even heard of the internet?

I bet if you asked them about a situation where all of europe provided healthcare to all of its citizens and maybe america should be as cool, they would burn you for being a witch.

Cause ancient people don't know jack about squat. Nuts to them!

 

If the world exists for another 200+ years, we don't know "jack about squat" according to your logic.

 

Well yes of course, and I hope that nobody in that time looks upon our opinions in a world pre-nanotech-cyborg-evolution and pre-lightspeed-teleportation as having any more than a quaint relevance.

 

The difference is that the Founding Fatjers knew that they couldn't foresee the advances that society would make, so they put in place the means for amending the Constitution, while still ensuring that that the Federal government would not over ride the rights of the states, which they saw as the laboratories of democracy.

 

They may have over-estimated the value of individual states having their own internal communication method which is more effective than any communication with the central, federal authority.

What I am saying is that, today, we can all communicate with washington extremely more easily than the founding fathers were capable of imagining (certainly none of them wrote about their fantastic ideas of a world with instant, complete communication from all people to all other people; not that I am aware of)

If they said that states are "laboratories of democracy", they failed to understand that the entire nation can effectively communicate and implement a policy which benefits the entire country, and which also relies on the contribution of the entire country.

Washington was a far away land, which didn't understand the southern man's experience with the peculiar institutions that existed there. This was a pretty fair judgement at the time. John Adams from new england could easily rage about how much he thought slavery stinks, but all the southern men could tell him that he has 'never travelled to the south, so back off guy.'

Today we can easily calculate national data and publish it on the internet and etc.

I don't see what the founding fathers had going for them that puts them in a better position to judge the behavior of a democracy. No other democracies existed before theirs except for the Articles of the Confederation, which failed!

 

You know what I find incredibly interesting. Mandated Car Insurance.

No one ever mentions it ever. But Obamacare is just an extension of the government mandated policy of purchasing Car Insurance.

 

Car insurance is NOT mandated. If you do not own a car, you do not have to buy car insurance. Thus, making an analogy between car insurance and mandated health insurance is not valid. Do you understand?

 

Under what federal law does it state that you must have car insurance? The states mandate that you must have car insurance, also the reason why states issue drivers licenses not the federal government. It really is simple, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, i.e. make it regular between the states so as not to have ambiguous statutes from state to state so that commerce does not flow.

I keep wondering where all the JFK democrats went, the ones who remember the famous line, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country! The US constitution is very clear, you have the right to pursue happiness, the federal government does not have the right to impose happiness upon you.

 

You're clearly very young, so perhaps you have not heard this phrase before: those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Human nature does not change. What is truly relevant about the Constitution has nothing to do with the context of when it was written, but - rather - how well it addressed controlling deleterious aspects of human nature (limiting the power of Government over its people due to the Founders extremely adept understanding of human nature) while freeing citizens to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Your attitude and lack of understanding of the purpose of the Constitution needs to be educated away, or you will surely lose these protections for your generation.

 

See above. In that sort of world, human nature will have remained the same, while you foolishly abandoned a set of protections that ensured your autonomy as a person in a world which would have magnified its ability to strip it from you.

 

So you're saying it's the new technologies that distinguish the difference? Internet, pollution, etc.? This is why the founders allowed amendments to the Constitution.