Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2011, 05:47 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,190,445 times
Reputation: 3411

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
The same reason 2 other judges have said it is unconstitutional....

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

If you REALLY think this is the same as the health care being implemented...

Then you really need to re-think your thinking...
This is a useless comparison...
The ruling on Wickard vs. Filburn set a precedence on Congress's power to regulate local activities that impact interstate commerce. My understanding, and I'm not an attorney, is that some judges believe that that ruling, and others, give congress the right to implement the individual mandate under HCR, and others do not. That's the case law that both sides are citing, and that's where the SC will have to step in. That particular case was about a farmer growing wheat, but that doesn't matter. It's about what powers Congress does or does not have under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

St. Louis Beacon - Analysis: Virginia ruling on health-care reform revives debate on national power, states' rights

 
Old 02-03-2011, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,423,886 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post

The same reason 2 other judges have said it is unconstitutional....

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

If you REALLY think this is the same as the health care being implemented...

Then you really need to re-think your thinking...
This is a useless comparison...
Apparently you have come to a conclusion about the Constitutionality of the Health Care Law without actually following it, without following the arguments being made both for and against its Constitutionality and how Wickard applies.

Why would you quote me the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry to try to answer my questions? And why would you only quote the most irrelevant part of it, no less?

Do you understand that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the Congress was within its rights and powers according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, to prevent Mr. Filburn from not participating in commerce that affected economic activity?

Do you understand that Wickard set a precedent (68 years +) on the matter of forced participation in economic activity, which would have to be overturned in order to rule against the Health Care Law?
 
Old 02-03-2011, 06:58 PM
 
46,222 posts, read 26,988,484 times
Reputation: 11092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
Apparently you have come to a conclusion about the Constitutionality of the Health Care Law without actually following it, without following the arguments being made both for and against its Constitutionality and how Wickard applies.

Why would you quote me the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry to try to answer my questions? And why would you only quote the most irrelevant part of it, no less?

Do you understand that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the Congress was within its rights and powers according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, to prevent Mr. Filburn from not participating in commerce that affected economic activity?

Do you understand that Wickard set a precedent (68 years +) on the matter of forced participation in economic activity, which would have to be overturned in order to rule against the Health Care Law?
I guess, but so have 2 other federal judges...and 26 states also have stated the same thing......so you must be right...and everyone else is wrong...

You see, everyone here continues to talk Constitutionality, about how great it is and the law you have stated is exactly why this health care law is Constitutional.....

Lets talk Constitutionality, a federal judge has said the law is void, without an injunction....but the judge said, this administration should follow his court order....but guess what, the administration is not...how is that Constitutional? It is so Constitutional the administration has not even requested a "stay", because they don't care...how Constitutional is that....

Your lefties are setting a great show for our children, the president of the United States will not even follow the law...that's Constitutionality for ya....

So tell me, this Wickard decided to grow more wheat for his chickens....after the government said not to. He did it...when the government found out they fined him and forced him to burn his wheat....

How the heck is that even close to being "you will have health insurance" and if not you will be fined....

Sorry, but I don't buy it....

And if that law is so Constitutionality, then why is the administration not standing up and saying "we can do this because of this law" and lets go one further...Why did the dems not use this argument before? You know when they had a super majority...to help explain it a little more...instead of just saying "we have to pass the bill to learn what is in the bill."

When are you lefties going to learn....I guess in November of 2012 because you learned nothing in November 2010..
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,488,465 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar View Post
Well, then you live under a rock.

I have seen buildings stopped being constructed due to the above.



I guess you fail.

My post TELLS YOU to read about all those things in detail at the link.

You obviously didn't bother.
The link won't open on my computer. Probably a virus. I work in health care. I have never heard a doctor say they were going to leave health care if Obamacare is implemented. I also deal with insurance companies every day, and I know how they deal with drugs.
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:05 PM
 
4 posts, read 2,676 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68 View Post
I hope this is the first in the long line of filibusters back at the right. Maybe throw in a veto here and there The right need to get back in their place and understand the democrats are running the show, not them.
And what drugs did you take tonight?
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:07 PM
 
Location: South East
4,209 posts, read 3,583,632 times
Reputation: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangesinsun View Post
And what drugs did you take tonight?
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,423,886 times
Reputation: 8564
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post

I guess, but so have 2 other federal judges...and 26 states also have stated the same thing......so you must be right...and everyone else is wrong...
First off, 2 federal judges have ruled the law unconstitutional and 2 federal judges have ruled it constitutional.

26 (actually 28 now) state Attorneys General (almost all Republican, btw), have filed suit, or joined in this suit, that does not give any weight to the constitutionality of the law. It just means people are suing. Not everyone who sues, wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post

You see, everyone here continues to talk Constitutionality, about how great it is and the law you have stated is exactly why this health care law is Constitutional.....

Lets talk Constitutionality, a federal judge has said the law is void, without an injunction....but in the judge said, this administration should follow his court order....but guess what, the administration is not...how is that Constitutional? It is so Constitutional the administration has not even requested a "stay", because they don't care...how Constitutional is that....
Again, 2 for, 2 against. At the moment, there is no binding ruling that the Administration is required to abide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post

Your lefties are setting a great show for our children, the president of the United States will not even follow the law...that's Constitutionality for ya....
This kind of language is where you lose me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post

So tell me, this Wickard decided to grow more wheat for his chickens....after the government said not to. He did it...when the government found out they fined him and forced him to burn his wheat....

How the heck is that even close to being "you have health insurance" and if not you will be fined....

Sorry, but I don't buy it....
I'll let your own Wikipedia link explain it to you then.
"Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."
So the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress could impose a fine on Filburn and force him to buy his wheat through the open market, because his non-participation in the open-market purchase of wheat, negatively affected interstate commerce.

In that same regard, Congress has relied upon the decision in Wickard to enact a law that in essence says, "through the cumulative actions of thousands (in this case millions) of individuals not participating in the health insurance pool, the economic effect becomes substantial, and viewed through the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce."

This is how the law works. Courts use decisions in one or more cases, to decide other cases, not based on whether each case was about feathers or gumballs, but based on the larger question as to how those laws are applicable to the Constitution.

And in this case, Wickard is the precedent being used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post

And if that law is so Constitutionality, then why is the administration not standing up and saying "we can do this because of this law" and lets go one further...Why did the dems not use this argument before? You know when they had a super majority...to help explain it a little more...instead of just saying "we have to pass the bill to learn what is in the bill."

When are yo lefties going to learn....I guess in November of 2012 because you learned nothing in November 2010..
You lost me again.
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:24 PM
 
Location: South East
4,209 posts, read 3,583,632 times
Reputation: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The link won't open on my computer. Probably a virus. I work in health care. I have never heard a doctor say they were going to leave health care if Obamacare is implemented. I also deal with insurance companies every day, and I know how they deal with drugs.
And here you go again, large and in charge with your medical 'knowledge.'

Again, all of my Doctor friends that you tried to put down on a previous post have said Obamacare is the worst thing that could ever happen to the medical industry and is or will hurt their jobs.

If the Dr you work for (and you are not a Dr and do not have a Dr's knowledge - you are a nurse) says Obamacare is good, he/she is the ONLY one saying so and therefore I absolutely discredit him/her.
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Eastern NC
20,868 posts, read 23,482,511 times
Reputation: 18813
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoobleKar View Post
LOL.....you mean like how the Democrats cared so much for the last two years while America suffered?

The voting public also noticed how Democrats passed ObamaCare in SPITE of them saying NO.

The voting public DID notice that and threw them out.
The public is also noticing that the repubs are doing nothing but catering to their extremist base now and will likely throw them out in the next election seeing how most polls show americans want this health care bill.
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,062,169 times
Reputation: 13772
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
Another big waste of time in government--after constant accusations by the R's that Reid wouldn't put the bill up for a vote in the Senate because it would fail, he did just that. The votes fell straight down party lines. There was absolutely no surprise here, but it was a massive waste of everyones times. Can we all get back to work on the economy now? We knew from the start this would be decided by the SCOTUS, and that's where it's headed.

The good news--the D's worked with the R's to remove the tax reporting required for small business--it was a very reasonable move. Let's see if the R's are that willing to extend the same spirit of compromise as well in the future.

Senate defeats health care repeal - International Business Times
Trying to right a wrong, is not a waste of time. We will submit a repeal again, and again
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top