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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2009, 11:13 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 10,277,995 times
Reputation: 3137

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
I am not a lawyer but I don't think that is true in every case.

Game Over: Federal Law Doesn’t Trump State Medical Marijuana Laws — MPP Blog

This case SCOTUS did not hear. If the law is directly in conflict with a Federal law then the federal law trumps. If the federal law "occupies the field" then the federal law trumps. If the fed law allows a state to opt out or forumulate their own rules then that would be o.k., but since there is no federal law yet on this issue, opting out is moot.

Federal laws can usually not regulate non-economic, non interstate commerce stuff. Health care insurance would be economic and interstate commerce. I would have to look in to the case above to see what is about, but may be an issue that does or does not fall into the group above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2009, 11:16 PM
 
1,481 posts, read 1,804,866 times
Reputation: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by happytexan View Post
if this is such a great deal then why is congress and the unions exempt ?
If this is as good as the federal program then get rid of the federal program and put all government workers on this including the elected officials and the union.

I mean this is the best plan (uhc) since sliced bread or so they say, so why are favored groups getting exemptions if they don't go with it ?
that's different!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 11:19 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,885 posts, read 12,989,745 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by omle View Post
that's different!

no it isnt, politicians should be the 1st in line to pay for this out of their pockets, and last in line to use it.

but we all know how it will work out, tax payers (excluding the liberal elite and politicians) will foot the entire bill for uhc and politicians will go out and get their own insurance while we the tax payers shall not have a choice at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 11:25 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 10,277,995 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
This case SCOTUS did not hear. If the law is directly in conflict with a Federal law then the federal law trumps. If the federal law "occupies the field" then the federal law trumps. If the fed law allows a state to opt out or forumulate their own rules then that would be o.k., but since there is no federal law yet on this issue, opting out is moot.

Federal laws can usually not regulate non-economic, non interstate commerce stuff. Health care insurance would be economic and interstate commerce. I would have to look in to the case above to see what is about, but may be an issue that does or does not fall into the group above.
O.K. now I have looked at it. The author of the article is confused. He concluded that because the court refused to hear the case that the state law trumps, which is a pretty stupid assumption. I am going to have to guess why the Court did not hear the case, but one possible explanation is that they did not want to rule on it. The federal law forbidding marijuana is probably unconstitutional...in my opinion. It is a stretch to say that it is based on interstate commerce, commerce clause, since California is not advocating exporting the stuff over state lines. Roberts probably did not want to rule on the case because of the sticky issue with the federal law, which would open up a pandora's box.

This law has been challenged before and although Scalia is pretty predictable he got this one wrong. A little judicial activism from Scalia is unusual. I don't think he wants to see this case again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 16,268,112 times
Reputation: 3123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
This case SCOTUS did not hear. If the law is directly in conflict with a Federal law then the federal law trumps. If the federal law "occupies the field" then the federal law trumps. If the fed law allows a state to opt out or forumulate their own rules then that would be o.k., but since there is no federal law yet on this issue, opting out is moot.

Federal laws can usually not regulate non-economic, non interstate commerce stuff. Health care insurance would be economic and interstate commerce. I would have to look in to the case above to see what is about, but may be an issue that does or does not fall into the group above.

Again I am not a lawyer but the fact that the Supreme Court didn't hear the case means that they are OK with the ruling of the lower court which allowed the state controlled substance laws supercede federal controlled substance laws.

Also I thought health insurers were not allowed to cross state lines, I thought each state regulated insurance? Therefore it is not interstate commerce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 11:44 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 10,277,995 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Again I am not a lawyer but the fact that the Supreme Court didn't hear the case means that they are OK with the ruling of the lower court which allowed the state controlled substance laws supercede federal controlled substance laws.

Also I thought health insurers were not allowed to cross state lines, I thought each state regulated insurance? Therefore it is not interstate commerce.
No that is not what it means. THere are a lot of reasons other than they agree with a case to not hear the case. You are making the same assumption that the author made. The supreme court does not hear every case for a lot of different reasons, which they don't have to give, but basically if the case is not ripe, the person making the case does not have standing, unjudiciabe etc.

I keep hearing that insurance companies are not allowed to cross state lines. I am going to have to look this up at some point, taking that as true it makes no difference. The test is easy to meet. If the equipment used in hospitals is purchased out of state that will be enough. If an insurance claim is paid to a hospital outside of state, which happens frequently when an individual is hurt or sick in another state this would affect interstate commerce.

This not a close call. Federal laws barring guns in states in areas such as school zones are much closer because it is non economic and it does not involve interstate commerce because it has nothing to do with the purchase of guns. I believe SCOTUS found this federal law unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2009, 10:56 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,935 posts, read 22,192,854 times
Reputation: 9018
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
Good luck with that. The only problem even if it were successfully passed by the states is that federal laws trump state laws. Sorry the constitution gets in the way. You might as well have them opt out of civil rights legislation..Crap they can even make slavery legal again, forbid abortions. This is just an attention getter it serves no purpose.
No, not in all cases. The feds have very limited powers granted to them. When they pass laws using that power those laws trump state laws. When they pass laws for which they have no authority to force on the states, those laws do not trump state laws. 10th Amendment and all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,935 posts, read 22,192,854 times
Reputation: 9018
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
This case SCOTUS did not hear. If the law is directly in conflict with a Federal law then the federal law trumps. If the federal law "occupies the field" then the federal law trumps. If the fed law allows a state to opt out or forumulate their own rules then that would be o.k., but since there is no federal law yet on this issue, opting out is moot.

Federal laws can usually not regulate non-economic, non interstate commerce stuff. Health care insurance would be economic and interstate commerce. I would have to look in to the case above to see what is about, but may be an issue that does or does not fall into the group above.
You must be reading a different Constitution than me because I only see interstate commerce not a broad "economics" category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2009, 11:04 AM
 
5,165 posts, read 5,307,518 times
Reputation: 1067
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
This looks like more tantrum-throwing from the right. All the talk about succession, refusing federal funding for states, and now this - it's incredible to see how belligerent they can be. If they don't want to be a part of this country, I really think some of them should consider seceding, forming their own state, or leaving the country entirely.
Every time conservatives dissapprove of the Federal government its a temper tantrum but when you hippies oppose the federal Government it is for the good of everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2009, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,529 posts, read 24,940,730 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse View Post
Every time conservatives dissapprove of the Federal government its a temper tantrum but when you hippies oppose the federal Government it is for the good of everyone.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:14 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - 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 - Top