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.
As much as I have issues with this bill, all you constitutional scholars out can forget about getting this bill thrown out on constitutional grounds. If it were possible, don't you think the opposition, most of whom are lawyers who presumably studied the constitution in much greater detail than the average CDer, would just sit back and let it fall on its own? They know it's constitutional as it stands; they read Lopez and all the other SCOTUS decisions that affect the commerce clause and federal authority.
All those states attorney generals that are beating the drums and filing suit know this as well. It's political posturing people! They threaten suit, knowing full well that it ain't going anywhere, and you applaud and say "finally, someone is doing something. That's my man for November."
My humble advice is that we should focus on November on the political process to get the changes made. If you believe that this bill is unconstitutional, you should study Articles 1 & 2, the commerce clause, dormant commerce, and non-judiciability. No one that has made it past the first year of law school honestly believes that this is unconstitutional. No court will think so either. Bad law and policy, maybe, but not unconstitutional.
As much as I have issues with this bill, all you constitutional scholars out can forget about getting this bill thrown out on constitutional grounds. If it were possible, don't you think the opposition, most of whom are lawyers who presumably studied the constitution in much greater detail than the average CDer, would just sit back and let it fall on its own? They know its constitutional as it stands; they read Lopez and all the other SCOTUS decisions that affect the commerce clause and federal authority.
All those states attorney generals that are beating the drums and filing suit know this as well. It's political posturing people! They threaten suit, knowing full well that it ain't going anywhere, and you applaud and say "finally, someone is doing something. That's my man for November."
My humble advice is that we should focus on November on the political process to get the changes made. If you believe that this bill is unconstitutional, you should study Articles 1 & 2, the commerce clause, dormant commerce, and non-judiciability. No one that has made it past the first year of law school, honestly believes that this is unconstitutional. No court will think so either. Bad law and policy, maybe, but not unconstitutional.
There are I believe 38 states fighting this bill in one form or another. Thats enough states to file a constitutional amendment. Which makes me curious why they havent taken this route.
Are you claiming that lawyers for ALL 38 states dont know what they are talking about? I believe the former attorney general also states its unconstitutional.
The issue comes down to this.. The Democratic argument is that the Constitution does not limit a tax on citizenship, the Republican argument is that its illegal to tax people for being a citizen. I guess we'll find out who's correct but many of these states have sued the federal government in the past and won on numerous accounts.
There are I believe 38 states fighting this bill in one form or another. Thats enough states to file a constitutional amendment. Which makes me curious why they havent taken this route.
Are you claiming that lawyers for ALL 38 states dont know what they are talking about? I believe the former attorney general also states its unconstitutional.
The issue comes down to this.. The Democratic argument is that the Constitution does not limit a tax on citizenship, the Republican argument is that its illegal to tax people for being a citizen. I guess we'll find out who's correct but many of these states have sued the federal government in the past and won on numerous accounts.
There may be enough support for a federal constitutional amendment, which would make all this mute. I, too, wonder why no one is really advocating for it.
These attorneys general do know what they are doing; it's political posturing. What better way to draw support for your party then to file suit against an unpopular bill? If these same attorneys general were teaching in law school right now, they'd be talking a different, more truthful, tune. Similarly, non-partisan legal scholars assert that there is no constitutional issues with this bill.
I agree, though, that states have sued the federal government and won but those have been on state issues, not a piece of nationwide legislation.
Yes,but that leads us back to...having ..."47m uninsured'...
We shoot ourselves in the foot,if we allow them to become the "army of socialisation "...
I am not buying that there are 47million uninsured people in America. I want ACCURATE numbers. How many of those are uninsured by CHOICE? How many of those are uninsured because they are ILLEGAL??
No amount of posting on this board will make Health Insurance reform unconstitutional, any more than it will make the whiners a majority. (Unless rasmussen is doing the polling, then 173% are opposed)
I agree, though, that states have sued the federal government and won but those have been on state issues, not a piece of nationwide legislation.
Yes, but the number of states makes this more than simply one state arguing with the federal government. This bill has an effect on our entire population and so there will be a lot more people disputing it, hence the reason for so many states filing suit.
Personally, I think many people in support of the bill aren't considering the constitutional issue here simply because they like the bill. And people tend to be self interested parties only concerned with what they get and what they want. The fact that it may be an infringement is irrelevant to them as to them, this is a "greater purpose" and so such infringement is acceptable.
That is like saying "I don't mind that that bank got robbed, I never liked it anyway, and besides he gave 1/2 of it to the poor" and then using it as justification for the crime. This is what some on this board are doing.
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.
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.
