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)
View Poll Results: Should Supreme Court Challenge Mandatory Health Insurance?
Yes 44 66.67%
No 22 33.33%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:12 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,742,907 times
Reputation: 1336

Advertisements

It would seem to me that there is no Constitutional power whatsoever for the Federal Government to make such a mandate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Reading, PA
4,011 posts, read 4,426,570 times
Reputation: 843
It doesn't work like that. There has to be a case which challenges constitutionality which works it's way through the system. The Supreme Court doesn't just decide that something is unconstitutional in a vacuum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:45 AM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,924,929 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
It would seem to me that there is no Constitutional power whatsoever for the Federal Government to make such a mandate.
Wouldn't that be the same for Social Security which is, after all, a form of insurance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:46 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,742,907 times
Reputation: 1336
Granted. Perhaps I should have asked if someone should immediately challenge the Constitutionality of such a Federal law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:48 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Wouldn't that be the same for Social Security which is, after all, a form of insurance?
Yes, along with federal mandates for unemployment, welfare, among many others which violate the 10th amendment.

They are allowed to exist because of one line in the Constitution which claims "for the general welfare"

These programs are all for the individual welfare, not general, but no one has ever challenged them in court because one needs jurisdictional authorization..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:49 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Wouldn't that be the same for Social Security which is, after all, a form of insurance?
That General Welfare Ponzi Scheme?

Always remember that it is FRAUD THAT KEEPS THIS COUNTRY GREAT!

If you don't like being defrauded, move to . . . . ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:50 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
Granted. Perhaps I should have asked if someone should immediately challenge the Constitutionality of such a Federal law.
I have a feeling that will be coming, need to wait until the plan is actually created first. Until then, one lacks any jurisdiction to challenge a program which does not exist yet..

And if that one is indeed successfully challenged, the rest of the programs will fall like dominos..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:51 AM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,924,929 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Yes, along with federal mandates for unemployment, welfare, among many others which violate the 10th amendment.

They are allowed to exist because of one line in the Constitution which claims "for the general welfare"

These programs are all for the individual welfare, not general, but no one has ever challenged them in court because one needs jurisdictional authorization..
But, of course, a challenge in this area would open a giant political can of worms. Imagine SS being declared unconstitutional. The political fallout would be really scary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,742,907 times
Reputation: 1336
That is really what I would like to see...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,067,914 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
It would seem to me that there is no Constitutional power whatsoever for the Federal Government to make such a mandate.
And what "legal" theory is this based upon? We have mandatory auto insurance. Kookie RW theories.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 PM.

© 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