ObamaCare unconstitutional?? lmao!

LOL!

You know why that is not interestuing at all? Because people try to bring it up every single time we have a thread like this.

And then we give the same response (you are not required to buy a car). And then the person who brought up the "OMG what about care insurance??!!11!!" stuff crawls away in silence.

It is mentioned constantly. It is always wrong from the same reason. You are not required to drive. You can go your entire life without ever paying car insurance if you dont want to.

It is the government REQUIRING you to buy a product. No, car insurance is not like that.

The car insurance analogy fails for a second reason....all mandates are at the STATE level anyway. The federal government does not require car insurance. States do. And they define their own rules for what is required.

 

so far, no one has been able to point out where the constitution prohibits obamacare

typical of the right

 

It's coercion, pure and simple...they cant do it...

 

The 10th amendment. All powers not defined as being federal are granted to the states, not the federal government. The Constitution does not say that the federal government can force people to buy products.

This power is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore it is not a power Obama has by default.

 

If you're talking about the Constitution, there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. You obviously have no concept of how American "law" works. Technically, there are no laws in the Constitution. The federal government has enumerated (numbered, limited, etc.) powers and law is based upon what the government cannot do, not what they can do.

 

So far, a multitude of sensible, coherent, educated responses have been laid at your feet, but you're still blatantly ignoring the facts because it proves your idealistic, unrealistic, nanny-state, utopian fantasy world wrong. So typical of the left.

Let me "point it out" for you.

Page 167 of H.R. 3962-Affordable Health Care for America Act titled Sec. 303. Benefits Package Levels states:

1 SEC. 303. BENEFITS PACKAGE LEVELS.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall specify
3 the benefits to be made available under Exchange-partici-
4 -pating health benefits plans during each plan year, con-
5 -sistent with subtitle C of title II and this section.
6 (b) LIMITATION ON HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS OF-
7 -FERED BY OFFERING ENTITIES.—The Commissioner may
8 not enter into a contract with a QHBP offering entity
9 under section 304(c) for the offering of an Exchange-par-
10 -ticipating health benefits plan in a service area unless the
11 following requirements are met:
12 (1) REQUIRED OFFERING OF BASIC PLAN.—The
13 entity offers only one basic plan for such service
14 area.
15 (2) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF ENHANCED
16 PLAN.—If and only if the entity offers a basic plan
17 for such service area, the entity may offer one en18
hanced plan for such area.
19 (3) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF PREMIUM PLAN.—
20 If and only if the entity offers an enhanced plan for
21 such service area, the entity may offer one premium
22 plan for such area.
23 (4) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF PREMIUM-PLUS
24 PLANS.—If and only if the entity offers a premium
25 plan for such service area, the entity may offer one
26 or more premium-plus plans for such area.
Since you most likely won’t be able to comprehend this by yourself, let’s break it down, shall we?
Line 2: The “Commissioner” is a health care commissioner, which will undoubtedly be a political appointee.
Line 8: QHBP is an acronym for qualified healthcare benefits provider.
Lines 6-11: This basically states that any company/organization that wants to provide healthcare benefits to its employees must first have governmental approval of said benefits. This is a violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Commerce Clause which is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the 10th Amendment, which respectively state:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (This means that the limited power given to the federal government specified by the Constitution cannot be interpreted to disallow or condemn other rights already owned by the people.)
AND
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (This means that the power not given to the federal government specified by the Constitution and also not given to the federal government but instead given to the States specified by the Constitution, are to be protected for use only by the States or by the people.)
AND
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;” – Commerce Clause of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Nowhere in this clause does it say the federal government is allowed to mandate commerce. It may only regulate commerce. And no, that does not mean it can regulate by mandating.)

Lines 12-26: In a nutshell, these are, according to the government, acceptable healthcare plans that the Commissioner (remember, a political appointee) may approve. If the Commissioner and Company XYZ cannot agree, Company XYZ will be taxed in addition to current taxes based on respective payroll (as will average individuals, not just businesses). So not only is this bill mandating commerce, but it is also going to be taxing businesses into failure for standing up for their rights.
Aside from all of the privacy violations, the arguable human rights violations, and the blatantly outright power-hungry undertones of this bill, my main point is that this healthcare law isn’t unconstitutional because we right-wingers supposedly hate poor people, minorities, and trees; it’s unconstitutional because it mandates (forces) people into buying a service or else. This healthcare law violates the Bill of Rights. It is 1-2-3, ABC, common sense. If this does not convince you, then there is no hope for you.

 

tl;dr 10char

 

And that's why you don't understand why Obama's healthcare law is unconstitutional. That's why almost zero politicians had no idea what was in the 1990-page bill and why almost every other liberal is clueless. You don't read or educate yourself.

 

The federal government is prohibited from doing anything not specifically authorized in the Constitution. It's typical of the liberals they don't bother reading it. Start with the 9th Amendment.

Typical leftists. Since they don't like the Constitution they feel they can pretend it doesn't exist.

 

Oh, and if you're actually going to LYAO, do it before Obamacare kicks in fully and you have to sit with your ass in your lap for a month to wait for treatment.

 

We've explained why it is unconstitutional. Your inability to address those explanations is typical of the left.

 

Please point out the part of the Constitution that gives the government the power to require citizens to engage in commerce Liberal Activist.

 

Please point out where it says it CAN'T do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

The 10th Amendment.

In other words, the Federal government does not have powers by default. It only has the powers specifically granted by the Constitution. The federal government cant just do whatever it wants. It is restricted by the Constitution.

This means that if the federal government wants to make a power grab, it needs to find something in the Constitution which (even if only implicitly) grants it that power. There is nothing in the Constitution that even IMPLIES that the government has the power to force all people to buy a product.

It also means that the burden of proof is on YOU not US. The government cannot simply do whatever the hell it wants to by default.

 

Quit lying, we have stated that the constitution does not allow the govt to mandate the citizenry purchase a private product like health insurance.

 

The 10th amendment forgot to say "expressly," so it's meaningless.

 

So you think the federal government has unlimited powers?

Tell me what YOU think that sentence I quoted means. Why is it in there at all if it is meaningless?

 

Hi all,
yah,
i am agree with you guys!!!

 

The health insurance issues were not something that could be foreseen by the founders, due to simple lack of the existence of modern medicine.

Because we, as a country can, we should consider health care a right. You cannot maintain a fair chance of life or happiness without it. As much as liberty is touted, it's nothing without life or happiness.


The people don't want government health care. This means we're stuck with the profit driven current system of private insurance and care.

Due to the extent of the greed in private health care and insurance industries, in order to protect the rights of life and happiness, they must be regulated. If we do not require them to insure those that are not profitable, they will not do so. This is simple capitalism, the prized "free market".

If we require them to sell insurance to everyone, and to do so at a fair price, we must require everyone to purchase it. There simply is no other legitimate way to protect the businesses, as, again, greed will drive people to not buy it until they need it.


The fact of the matter is that it's a sad state of affairs where the people must be protected from the industry's greed, and the industry must be protected from the people's greed. These are actions the founders simply could not predict being necessary, as modern health care was unimaginable at that point, let alone the breadth of the industries involved in care, medicine, and insurance. This is a completely unique scenario that could not have been predicted in the 18th century.

250 years ago, constant illness, early death, poor dentistry, etc., these were simply the way life was.

That's not what the constitution was designed to protect.

That's not how we should hope for things to be as Americans.

 

The Government has no right to force you to buy anything or be penalized for not doing so.

 

As a European-style socialist, I support Obama-care.

 

2 kinds of laws:

- Statutory

- Case Law


Once legislators create a law it is up to appealing parties, amicus, ect to drive it thru the courts to get case law to overturn it. Point is, the burden is on you once a law is in place, so to ask anyone to demonstrate the Constitutionality of a law is void; you must establish its unConstitutionality.

 

How could anyone celebrate such a coward as Fascist Ronnie? He was in the reserve for 5 years, in 1942 he was called up for duty just after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and he developed and eye problem.

 

Sorry, it can and does, it is then up to you to appeal it. How about antimiscegenation laws, they just passed them and it took decades to deem them unConstitutional.

The Fed gov has 3 branches and many stratified divisions within them, then there are the people of the gov, so you're being too vague by refering just to the government.

The Legislative branch writes and passes statotry law, signed by the execcutive if necessary. This law gets applied and the people can appeal these laws as unConst if they wish. Just becuase you don't like a certain law doesn't mean it can't be tried and tested. Other than conservatives, who are ultimately regressives, this country and others are big experiments, hence government is dynamic and progressive.

Fascist Ronnie and corporate friends made us buy auto insurance / wear seat belts, altho a car is not actually mandatory, let's be realistic and say that it is. He made the states comply via threat of loss of highway funds, so talk about the ultimate power grab. But I agree, the people should not be required to buy HC ins, infact ot should be provided free.

 

I agree, let's make it free to the user and be done with this argument.