As I said, it's not isolated to the left. Hell, it's not even necessarily everyone on the left. A large portion of people on the left are against the individual mandate. I'm against on principle, but not as a matter of policy. Both sides are guilty.
General Welfare, and yes it means exactly what it means.
Requiring Car insurance is unconstitutional.
Women voting is unconstitutional.
Civil rights act is unconstitutional.
Healthcare isn't.
The constitution stands as a living document, it's suppose to be a guideline. Progress is a bitch ain't it?
US Constitution is our governing document and it says "General Welfare."
general welfare means general welfare means general welfare.
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. -- Thomas Jefferson
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)
The horse is dead.
I understand the problem with a lack of judicial review, which is why I believe it should exist. The question I'm trying to ask is that, no matter what logic you use, on some level you are taking the leap of faith that the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) will not abuse this power.
The irony of this entire thread is that guys like Cad are trying so hard to pain a picture of "us vs. them, left vs. right" that they ignore the fact that the extreme left and right agree on this issue. The far left believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it violates individual choice, the same reason they support abortion. Each side agrees on the outcome, just not the way they justify it.
For what it's worth, I believe it's probably unconstitutional.
The difference is that from a matter of policy, which is what Congress is supposed to do, I see no responsible way to eliminate things like pre-existing conditions without a mandate. Simply banning these practices without forcing more people into the insurance pool would have the effect of destroying the private market. I believe that Congress should pass the best policy it can, and I believe it has.
I leave it to the Supreme Court to resolve the potential Constitutional questions. I have faith that the Supreme Court will make the correct and right decision, no matter what the decision is.
And with that, I'm off to work.
Wow, so the progressives whine like little bitches about all the bad things their daddy bush did then try to defend this abortion of legislation as the constitution being just a guideline to govern by.
And it's by no means done, not with 11 states already declaring the will file lawsuits against it on constitutional grounds.
I don't know if this is unconstitutional or not. But the fact of the matter is that the federal government is forcing us to invest in private, for profit, companies. I'm not okay with that and you shouldn't be either.
I don't know if this is unconstitutional or not. But the fact of the matter is that the federal government is forcing us to invest in private, for profit, companies. I'm not okay with that and you shouldn't be either.
Are you ok with your state government forcing you to buy car insurance?
The law allows the government to TAX and SPEND on behalf of the citizens.
And there you have it ... Simple. Legal.
And it's by no means done, not with 11 states already declaring the will file lawsuits against it on constitutional grounds.
Yeah, it is done. The courts have a very long history of ignoring the 10th Amendment and having federal laws take precedence over state laws cough, cough, can you say Medicare and Medicaid?
Fixed.
Congress can do practically anything under the commerce clause. Insurance companies transact business across state lines. Hospital conduct commerce across state lines. Thus, Congress can regulate under commerce clause.
This will end the same way as most previous 9th and 10th amendment cases do. The federal law will stand. One man's ignore is another man's upholding.
This will end the same way as most previous 9th and 10th amendment cases do. The federal law will stand. One man's ignore is another man's upholding.
Are you ok with your state government forcing you to buy car insurance?
when has the commerce clause ever been used to force every american citizen to buy a product?
Care to tell me what turns you on about an ever expanding federal government?