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.
Wasn't it one of our illustrious Democratic leaders that recently said we have 3 branches of the federal government? The house, the senate and the presidency? Obama seems to have followed that line and forgotten all about the SC and the BALANCE of power. He has to remember, he was elected president, not emperor.
Should this law be ruled unconstitutional, what does it say about Obama's knowledge and ability as a professor of Constitutional law?
Says a lot. The guy cant even give one reason why it should be upheld except just because he says so. Not one Constitutional argument.
Everyone takes place in the healthcare market. Not some, not most, but all, everyone will buy an aspirin, or end up in a hospital sooner or later.
As such, the government has a right to mandate that you buy insurance to be in that market. It falls under the interstate commerce clause.
Now, I'm not at all saying that I agree with that perception. In my opinion, the interstate commerce clause has been used for things that it was never meant to, such as the prohibition of drugs. But the kicker is this, Republican and Democratic over reach on the interstate commerce clause is what allows that argument.
If you buy a car, it can be mandated that the car you buy have certain safety features, like seat belts. Every car that rolls off the line today has seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc. All things mandated that you buy, by the federal government.
Its not a far reach to say that it can be constitutional, under our interpretation as it currently is today.
Wasn't it one of our illustrious Democratic leaders that recently said we have 3 branches of the federal government? The house, the senate and the presidency? Obama seems to have followed that line and forgotten all about the SC and the BALANCE of power. He has to remember, he was elected president, not emperor.
Should this law be ruled unconstitutional, what does it say about Obama's knowledge and ability as a professor of Constitutional law?
One could easily argue the same about those who vote against it.
Of course, I do want all of these uninsured people to get insurance so I don't have to keep footing the bill for their treatment. Yet, I guess in the end the Court will strike down at least the individual mandate. I shall keep on paying for the freeloaders.
Your attempts at sounding 'informed' and 'reasonable' fell apart .. right there!
I'm guessing here .. You are of the mind that if the law is passed .. It will be Obama Money that will be paying the bills!?
Everyone takes place in the healthcare market. Not some, not most, but all, everyone will buy an aspirin, or end up in a hospital sooner or later.
As such, the government has a right to mandate that you buy insurance to be in that market. It falls under the interstate commerce clause.
Now, I'm not at all saying that I agree with that perception. In my opinion, the interstate commerce clause has been used for things that it was never meant to, such as the prohibition of drugs. But the kicker is this, Republican and Democratic over reach on the interstate commerce clause is what allows that argument.
If you buy a car, it can be mandated that the car you buy have certain safety features, like seat belts. Every car that rolls off the line today has seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc. All things mandated that you buy, by the federal government.
Its not a far reach to say that it can be constitutional, under our interpretation as it currently is today.
The difference is (and this has been poined out by mulitple justices) in all previous instances, the requirements have been on those who sell. in the case before the court, the mandate requires everyone BUY a product. That has never happened before and it changes the relationship between the government and the citizen (per Justice Kennedy)
Also the argument that everyone is in this market also fails on a certain level. Everyone is involved in the food market. Does this give the government the right to mandate we all buy broccoli? (again that is an exact question from one of the justices.
The difference is (and this has been poined out by mulitple justices) in all previous instances, the requirements have been on those who sell. in the case before the court, the mandate requires everyone BUY a product. That has never happened before and it changes the relationship between the government and the citizen (per Justice Kennedy)
Also the argument that everyone is in this market also fails on a certain level. Everyone is involved in the food market. Does this give the government the right to mandate we all buy broccoli? (again that is an exact question from one of the justices.
But the problem is that everyone is a consumer, and that you have to pay for it.
And yes, the broccoli point is valid, and why I hope that the mandate is overturned. I'm simply stating that there is a constitutional argument to be made. The poster I referenced stated that there were none. This simply isn't true.
Obama is from Chicago, he knows the arm twisting, and the muscle to get what he wants. Obama is the biggest manipulator and the masses just follow whatever he says.
They all must have had that feeling up their leg and that a light came down from somewhere and say I have to vote for Barrack. Obama has watched Reverend Wright for 20 years and he knows how to manipulate minds.
Wow Obama adopting the language of conservatives about judicial activism. I never thought that day would come.
Edit: I personally think a mandate to buy health insurance by the Federal government is Unconstitutional. If Democrats want the mandate, it needs to implemented individually by each state or there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution.
Except ruling on constitutionality of the law is NOT judicial activism. Legislating from the bench is. Do you think Obama doesn't know the difference or he's lying again?
Complaining about activist judges (which both sides do) is completely different from saying their branch of the government isn't legit, because they aren't elected. They're separate but EQUAL branches, Mr. Obama. You would be outraged if they disrespected you, but you feel free to disrespect them all the time.
Speaking of unelected, I don't remember voting for Eric Holder, yet he chooses to ignore laws that congress has passed. Different? How?
There has been much criticism on this thread about constitutional interpretation, which is a function of the Judicial Branch. This is nothing new. Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," "activist judges" - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law: witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)
Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.
Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
cc: B. Obama
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.
