Federal Judge in Florida rules healthcare law unconstitutional

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

However it seems politically suicidal to attempt to institute such a system at the present moment.

coolbeans90

The American public is an interesting crowd. While it seems to love Medicare, (at least old people) I imagine that at least in the short term that having Medicare cover the entire populous would be seen as the "s" word. However, if done gradually, it could be done. But at the present moment, I do not think that even a comprehensive legislative path gradually increasing Medicare coverage over the next several decades could be passed at the present moment. An increase in government run programs doesn't seem to be in phase in the time being. (see public option)

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I'm saying that medical care is to public roads as health insurance is to car insurance. As for forcibly requiring perfectly fine individuals who do not want to purchase health insurance, having a system in place where "perfectly fine individuals" have the freedom to not get insurance doesn't do anyone any favors, because everyone is going to need to utilize medical care at some point in their life, and no one knows when it is they are going to have to utilize that (often expensive) medical care, which is why insurance is pretty much a necessity when it comes to participating in the health care market.-Sun_Tzu-

I think what you are trying to say is that access to medical care would be analogous to public roads, not the medical care itself. I would agree. However I do not agree with forcing people to purchase health insurance simply because a third party has allowed them access to medical care. They didn't have a choice in the matter. And while people are going to participate in the health-care market at some point in their life, I think that it would be a preferable option to allow individuals a choice in how they would prefer to finance said interactions with that market. Insurance is more of a necessity for some people than it is others.

And for every one of those stories, there are many more people who go through their 20s without insurance and purchase it as they age. Stories aren't too compelling of an argument. I've heard too many stories about people who died in car wrecks. Should I therefore stop driving?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't know about that. We already have a pretty good single-payer system in place in the U.S. that is very popular, and I don't think it would be political suicide to make it possible for, say, 55 year olds to opt in to medicare, and then you can gradually reduce that age for eligibility, thus by extension you are gradually transitioning over to a single-payer system for everyone. -Sun_Tzu-

The American public is an interesting crowd. While it seems to love Medicare, (at least old people) I imagine that at least in the short term that having Medicare cover the entire populous would be seen as the "s" word. However, if done gradually, it could be done. But at the present moment, I do not think that even a comprehensive legislative path gradually increasing Medicare coverage over the next several decades could be passed at the present moment. An increase in government run programs doesn't seem to be in phase in the time being. (see public option)

Well the point that I initially made was with respect to the current time. It is undeniably possible that in the future that eventually there may be a point where a single-payer system could be implemented. But despite the public's approval of certain public programs doesn't really necessitate that they are open to more. (particularly given the current political climate) However, things change. I have no idea what the American political landscape will look like five years from now.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I think what you are trying to say is that access to medical care would be analogous to public roads, not the medical care itself. I would agree. However I do not agree with forcing people to purchase health insurance simply because a third party has allowed them access to medical care. They didn't have a choice in the matter. And while people are going to participate in the health-care market at some point in their life, I think that it would be a preferable option to allow individuals a choice in how they would prefer to finance said interactions with that market. Insurance is more of a necessity for some people than it is others.

coolbeans90

And for every one of those stories, there are many more people who go through their 20s without insurance and purchase it as they age. Stories aren't too compelling of an argument. I've heard too many stories about people who died in car wrecks. Should I tehrefore stop driving?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The American public is an interesting crowd. While it seems to love Medicare, (at least old people) I imagine that at least in the short term that having Medicare cover the entire populous would be seen as the "s" word. However, if done gradually, it could be done. But at the present moment, I do not think that even a comprehensive legislative path gradually increasing Medicare coverage over the next several decades could be passed at the present moment. An increase in government run programs doesn't seem to be in phase in the time being. (see public option)

coolbeans90

Well the point that I initially made was with respect to the current time. It is undeniably possible that in the future that eventually there may be a point where a single-payer system could be implemented. But despite the public's approval of certain public programs doesn't really necessitate that they are open to more. (particularly given the current political climate) However, things change. I have no idea what the American political landscape will look like five years from now.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Considering how you have no possible idea what could happen to your health at literally any given time, insurance is a neccesity for everyone at all times to actually partake in the health care market without ending up in a huge amount of debt, considering the cost of medical care. There are too many stories of young adults ending up in a huge amount of debt because they either got sick or got in an accident and didn't have insurance to pay for their care because they thought they wouldn't need it. -Sun_Tzu-

And for every one of those stories, there are many more people who go through their 20s without insurance and purchase it as they age. Stories aren't too compelling of an argument. I've heard too many stories about people who died in car wrecks. Should I tehrefore stop driving?

I would disagree with your cost/benefit analysis. Most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt. On a separate note, would you by chance consider drinking worth the benefits? (I am not asking about legality here) Regardless, I am not particularly inclined to force people to make what I consider to be the best decisions for their own well being.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It obviously wouldn't happen anytime soon seeing as how the republicans control the house and can essentially veto anything the democratic majority wants to do in the senate with the filibuster, but I think a single-payer system for the entire country could be implemented with the general public's blessing, because the general public, despite the widespread fear of "socialism", really likes public programs, conservatives included.

-Sun_Tzu-

Well the point that I initially made was with respect to the current time. It is undeniably possible that in the future that eventually there may be a point where a single-payer system could be implemented. But despite the public's approval of certain public programs doesn't really necessitate that they are open to more. (particularly given the current political climate) However, things change. I have no idea what the American political landscape will look like five years from now.

The public option proposal was a bit different than NHS via Medicare, as it was self-sufficient.

Well, I'm glad I live in a country with universal healthcare.

and personally I like having the American system around, anytime a right wing nutjob suggests privatization all I need to do it point south and shake my head.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

And for every one of those stories, there are many more people who go through their 20s without insurance and purchase it as they age. Stories aren't too compelling of an argument. I've heard too many stories about people who died in car wrecks. Should I tehrefore stop driving?

coolbeans90

I would disagree with your cost/benefit analysis. Most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt. On a separate note, would you by chance consider drinking worth the benefits? (I am not asking about legality here) Regardless, I am not particularly inclined to force people to make what I consider to be the best decisions for their own well being.

... People can not predict if they will have a accident.. Furthermore not having health care (which I would assume is dental) is just flat out stupid.. You can not garentee something would happen.. Furthermore your shirking off preventive care, the most important thing when it comes to a persons health in be able to to detect things before they become a serious issue.. To be frank people who think that not having health care is a good idea, are idiots.. You can not predict what will happen to you not to mention as stated earlier not having any kind of frequent check up..

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Of course you shouldn't stop driving - the benefits of driving outweighs the risks. The benefits of not having insurance however, in no way, shape or form outweigh the risk involved. We shouldn't base our health care policies on the reckless actions of young people who are fortunate enough to get away with not having insurance (especially considering how those actions are making everyone else who are doing the responsible thing and acquiring health insurance pay more for it and is making it impossible for many people who actually need care from getting that care). sSubZerOo

I would disagree with your cost/benefit analysis. Most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt. On a separate note, would you by chance consider drinking worth the benefits? (I am not asking about legality here) Regardless, I am not particularly inclined to force people to make what I consider to be the best decisions for their own well being.

... People can not predict if they will have a accident.. Furthermore not having health care (which I would assume is dental) is just flat out stupid.. You can not garentee something would happen.. Furthermore your shirking off preventive care, the most important thing when it comes to a persons health in be able to to detect things before they become a serious issue.. To be frank people who think that not having health care is a good idea, are idiots.. You can not predict what will happen to you not to mention as stated earlier not having any kind of frequent check up..

People can take efforts to avoid accidents. Considering that they have to pay out of pocket, the incentive is certainly there to be even more cautious. Should people move to cities and utilize public transportation to avoid car wrecks? Risk is part of life. One can take steps to minimize at some cost, and vice-versa. One could pay for certain care out of pocket. While preventative care is nice, at what point does accessing care for absurdly trivial problems become more of a drain than a benefit? I reiterate that not having health insurance =/= not having access to health-care. And finally, I'll reiterate my final sentence in my previous post.

Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.Washington Times

Source

Congress is now trying to force people to purchase something. While they wanted us to buy war bonds during WWII, you didn't have to.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Congress did some really shady things to get that bill passed such as exempting Nebraska, adding capital gains taxes along with other taxes and as such, they failed to focus the bill on just health care. Notice that those who wanted to include a government option backed off when taxpayers balked at such a thing.

Nothing is free no matter where you live. I don't care if in a country with socialized medical care, you are paying for it out of your paycheck with higher taxes and worse, have lower care standards.

[quote="Washington Times"]

Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.WhiteKnight77

Source

Congress is now trying to force people to purchase something. While they wanted us to buy war bonds during WWII, you didn't have to.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Congress did some really shady things to get that bill passed such as exempting Nebraska, adding capital gains taxes along with other taxes and as such, they failed to focus the bill on just health care. Notice that those who wanted to include a government option backed off when taxpayers balked at such a thing.

Nothing is free no matter where you live. I don't care if in a country with socialized medical care, you are paying for it out of your paycheck with higher taxes and worse, have lower care standards.

Yes, lower medical standards...

Must be why Citizens of many other first world countries enjoy a healthier and longer life.

All at a lower cost per capita

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

And for every one of those stories, there are many more people who go through their 20s without insurance and purchase it as they age. Stories aren't too compelling of an argument. I've heard too many stories about people who died in car wrecks. Should I tehrefore stop driving?

coolbeans90

I would disagree with your cost/benefit analysis. Most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt. On a separate note, would you by chance consider drinking worth the benefits? (I am not asking about legality here) Regardless, I am not particularly inclined to force people to make what I consider to be the best decisions for their own well being.

im glad they did it i beleive they now join a total of 26 states striking this down. hopefully the supreme court will side with themkayoticdreamz

• Judges who struck it down, were GOP nominated
• States who are challenging it, GOP controlled

This is partisan as hell. This is not about how "its going to kill jobs". Its basically the GOP wanting to screw Obama so they can get their presidential candidate winning the election. Mitch McConnel said the no.1 priority was to make Obama a one term president. Not to mention the GOP was running on the 'Repeal & Reform' line last november. Shows how clueless voters were when even if the GOP won both houses. A repeal would have been impossible with Obama's Veto signature lurking.

[quote="Washington Times"]

Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.WhiteKnight77

Source

Congress is now trying to force people to purchase something. While they wanted us to buy war bonds during WWII, you didn't have to.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Congress did some really shady things to get that bill passed such as exempting Nebraska, adding capital gains taxes along with other taxes and as such, they failed to focus the bill on just health care. Notice that those who wanted to include a government option backed off when taxpayers balked at such a thing.

Nothing is free no matter where you live. I don't care if in a country with socialized medical care, you are paying for it out of your paycheck with higher taxes and worse, have lower care standards.

The key parts will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The expansion of the commerce clause is far beyond what Anthony Kennedy has ever been willing to accept in the past. I hope it gets there soon.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Of course you shouldn't stop driving - the benefits of driving outweighs the risks. The benefits of not having insurance however, in no way, shape or form outweigh the risk involved. We shouldn't base our health care policies on the reckless actions of young people who are fortunate enough to get away with not having insurance (especially considering how those actions are making everyone else who are doing the responsible thing and acquiring health insurance pay more for it and is making it impossible for many people who actually need care from getting that care). -Sun_Tzu-

I would disagree with your cost/benefit analysis. Most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt. On a separate note, would you by chance consider drinking worth the benefits? (I am not asking about legality here) Regardless, I am not particularly inclined to force people to make what I consider to be the best decisions for their own well being.

The cost/benefit analysis still seems to be a subjective opinion. It will benefit many, it will burn a few. One by not helping someone isn't harming them. They are simply not helping them. The optimal level of social welfare is a subject worthy of its own discussion. All of those programs that you mention clearly serve a public interest. The only conceivable way that I see universal health insurance serving the general public at large as opposed to a zero-sum game is via health-care industry cost reduction in a single-payer system. (as opposed to the current bill in discussion)

The key parts will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The expansion of the commerce clause is far beyond what Anthony Kennedy has ever been willing to accept in the past. I hope it gets there soon.

Communistik

Using our trusty friend, wikipedia:

On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5

Odds that Kennedy votes with conservatives: 2:1

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

The key parts will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The expansion of the commerce clause is far beyond what Anthony Kennedy has ever been willing to accept in the past. I hope it gets there soon.

DroidPhysX

Using our trusty friend, wikipedia:

On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5

Odds that Kennedy votes with conservatives: 2:1

Precisely.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

The key parts will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The expansion of the commerce clause is far beyond what Anthony Kennedy has ever been willing to accept in the past. I hope it gets there soon.

DroidPhysX

Using our trusty friend, wikipedia:

On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5

Odds that Kennedy votes with conservatives: 2:1

Depends. What kind of legislation did he go liberal on?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

The key parts will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The expansion of the commerce clause is far beyond what Anthony Kennedy has ever been willing to accept in the past. I hope it gets there soon.

coolbeans90

Using our trusty friend, wikipedia:

On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5

Odds that Kennedy votes with conservatives: 2:1

Depends. What kind of legislation did he go liberal on?

He flip flops on social issues. But I look at the Citizens United v. FEC case. That just tells me that he's going to vote no.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Using our trusty friend, wikipedia:

On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5

Odds that Kennedy votes with conservatives: 2:1

DroidPhysX

Depends. What kind of legislation did he go liberal on?

He flip flops on social issues. And But I look at the Citizens United v. FEC case. That just tells me that he's going to vote no.

Yeah, given that case, I think the odds may be in the "uncostitutional's" favor.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Depends. What kind of legislation did he go liberal on?

coolbeans90

He flip flops on social issues. And But I look at the Citizens United v. FEC case. That just tells me that he's going to vote no.

Yeah, given that case, I think the odds may be in the "uncostitutional's" favor.

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

He flip flops on social issues. And But I look at the Citizens United v. FEC case. That just tells me that he's going to vote no.

Theokhoth

Yeah, given that case, I think the odds may be in the "uncostitutional's" favor.

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yeah, given that case, I think the odds may be in the "uncostitutional's" favor.

WhiteKnight77

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

He flip flops on social issues. And But I look at the Citizens United v. FEC case. That just tells me that he's going to vote no.

Theokhoth

Yeah, given that case, I think the odds may be in the "uncostitutional's" favor.

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

I am only saying this based upon the Citizens United v. FEC case. If you read my comments eariler in the thread, you would see that I predicted that SCOTUS would uphold the law.This wouldn't apply to car insurance. There are clearly different legal technicalities involved. Car insurance would not be found unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The Supreme Court WILL NOT rule that this is unconstitutional for two simple reasons: Make it unconstitutional will by default apply to car insurance as well. Since the gubment CLEARLY can't make us buy anything, forcing us to buy car insurance would unconstitutional (whether we have a car or not). With there being a car accident every five seconds in this country, this would be disastrous.

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

Theokhoth

10th amendment gives the power of auto insurance to the states

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yeah, given that case, I think the odds may be in the "uncostitutional's" favor.

coolbeans90

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

I am only saying this based upon the Citizens United v. FEC case. If you read my comments eariler in the thread, you would see that I predicted that SCOTUS would uphold the law.This wouldn't apply to car insurance. There are clearly different legal technicalities involved. Car insurance would not be found unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] Car insurance is a state's rights deal and not a federal government deal. Sorry, different areas of the Constitution.

DroidPhysX

10th amendment gives the power of auto insurance to the states

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The Supreme Court WILL NOT rule that this is unconstitutional for two simple reasons: Make it unconstitutional will by default apply to car insurance as well. Since the gubment CLEARLY can't make us buy anything, forcing us to buy car insurance would unconstitutional (whether we have a car or not). With there being a car accident every five seconds in this country, this would be disastrous.

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

Theokhoth

Federal law, when in conflict with state law supersedes state law. However, that doesn't mean that the state law is bound by the exact same legal framework. The Federal Gov't is capable of regulating interstate commerce via the commerce clause. It ONLY refers to the Federal government as it explicitly mentions Congress. This makes the lawsuit completely irrelevant to state law. Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment, powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved by the states and people respectively. Hence, state governments may in point of fact legislate regulation provided that it doesn't conflict with Federal law.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] Car insurance is a state's rights deal and not a federal government deal. Sorry, different areas of the Constitution.

coolbeans90

Federal law, when in conflict with state law supersedes state law. However, that doesn't mean that the state law is bound by the exact same legal framework. The Federal Gov't is capable of regulating interstate commerce via the commerce clause. It ONLY refers to the Federal government as it explicitly mentions Congress. This makes the lawsuit completely irrelevant to state law. Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment, powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved by the states and people respectively. Hence, state governments may in point of fact legislate regulation provided that it doesn't conflict with Federal law.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Federal Court rulings supersede state laws. (If it's ruled unconstitutional, then no state may have it.)

Theokhoth

Federal law, when in conflict with state law supersedes state law. However, that doesn't mean that the state law is bound by the exact same legal framework. The Federal Gov't is capable of regulating interstate commerce via the commerce clause. It ONLY refers to the Federal government as it explicitly mentions Congress. This makes the lawsuit completely irrelevant to state law. Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment, powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved by the states and people respectively. Hence, state governments may in point of fact legislate regulation provided that it doesn't conflict with Federal law.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Federal Court rulings supersede state laws. (If it's ruled unconstitutional, then no state may have it.)

Theokhoth

10th amendment gives the power of auto insurance to the states

The Federal Government abolished slavery via legislation.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Federal Court rulings supersede state laws. (If it's ruled unconstitutional, then no state may have it.)

Theokhoth

Federal law, when in conflict with state law supersedes state law. However, that doesn't mean that the state law is bound by the exact same legal framework. The Federal Gov't is capable of regulating interstate commerce via the commerce clause. It ONLY refers to the Federal government as it explicitly mentions Congress. This makes the lawsuit completely irrelevant to state law. Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment, powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved by the states and people respectively. Hence, state governments may in point of fact legislate regulation provided that it doesn't conflict with Federal law.

Not if SCOTUS says that the Federal government may not mandate the purchase of insurance. What is considered contradictory to the constitution for one part of U.S. government may not be so for another. (see declarations of war)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

10th amendment gives the power of auto insurance to the states

coolbeans90

The Federal Government abolished slavery via legislation.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The Supreme Court WILL NOT rule that this is unconstitutional for two simple reasons: Make it unconstitutional will by default apply to car insurance as well. Since the gubment CLEARLY can't make us buy anything, forcing us to buy car insurance would unconstitutional (whether we have a car or not). With there being a car accident every five seconds in this country, this would be disastrous.

The second reason is because the Supreme Court is essentially bought and paid for by corporate interests (as Citizens United clearly demonstrated), and the healthcare bill is nothing if not tailored for insurance company profits (it's biggest flaw). Even if the bill was unconstitutional, the Conservative court wouldn't dare do the inconvenient thing for their Big Business bosses.

Theokhoth

I am only saying this based upon the Citizens United v. FEC case. If you read my comments eariler in the thread, you would see that I predicted that SCOTUS would uphold the law.This wouldn't apply to car insurance. There are clearly different legal technicalities involved. Car insurance would not be found unconstitutional.

No, it wouldn't necessitate that mandating of auto insurance would be unconstitutional. Federal Government =/= state governments. It's not government mandated purchases as a whole that are in question here. Furthermore, the purchase of insurance could be required contingent solely upon ones decision to utilize public roads.

Sometimes this country disgusts me.MgamerBD

I think they should change the American flag to this....

Like the politician said, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."

Now lets pass a bill people actually READ before passing to 'find out what's in it' after it passed.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] And the Supreme Court interprets the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment used to give states the power to create and own slaves; then the Supreme Court said the federal government may not do that, which means neither can the states. Supreme Court rulings are UNIVERSAL. They set the bar on the law. If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the federal government may not prohibit gay marriage, the same rule would apply to all fifty states.

Theokhoth

The Federal Government abolished slavery via legislation.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Federal law, when in conflict with state law supersedes state law. However, that doesn't mean that the state law is bound by the exact same legal framework. The Federal Gov't is capable of regulating interstate commerce via the commerce clause. It ONLY refers to the Federal government as it explicitly mentions Congress. This makes the lawsuit completely irrelevant to state law. Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment, powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved by the states and people respectively. Hence, state governments may in point of fact legislate regulation provided that it doesn't conflict with Federal law.

coolbeans90

Not if SCOTUS says that the Federal government may not mandate the purchase of insurance. What is considered contradictory to the constitution for one part of U.S. government may not be so for another. (see declarations of war)

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may ban sodomy.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Once again, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which includes the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and everything else. If the Supreme Court says mandating a purchase violates the Constitution, that ruling sets the framework for the law in all fifty states, because no state law may contradict the Constitution (or the court's interpretation of it).

Theokhoth

Not if SCOTUS says that the Federal government may not mandate the purchase of insurance. What is considered contradictory to the constitution for one part of U.S. government may not be so for another. (see declarations of war)

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

No they're not. The SCOTUS SELECTIVELY incorporated amendments to states. Remember, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, until the SCOTUS applied EACH ONE slowly to the states. They didnt rule that all 10 amendments applied to all states in one ruling.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] And the Supreme Court interprets the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment used to give states the power to create and own slaves; then the Supreme Court said the federal government may not do that, which means neither can the states. Supreme Court rulings are UNIVERSAL. They set the bar on the law. If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the federal government may not prohibit gay marriage, the same rule would apply to all fifty states.

Theokhoth

The Federal Government abolished slavery via legislation.

Regarding Sandford v. Scott:

"The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States."

Source

It was overturned. And regardless of whether or not you want to believe, slavery was ended by the legislative process.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not if SCOTUS says that the Federal government may not mandate the purchase of insurance. What is considered contradictory to the constitution for one part of U.S. government may not be so for another. (see declarations of war)

DroidPhysX

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

No they're not. The SCOTUS SELECTIVELY incorporated amendments to states. Remember, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, until the SCOTUS applied EACH ONE slowly to the states. They didnt rule that all 10 amendments applied to all states in one ruling.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Once again, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, which includes the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and everything else. If the Supreme Court says mandating a purchase violates the Constitution, that ruling sets the framework for the law in all fifty states, because no state law may contradict the Constitution (or the court's interpretation of it).

Theokhoth

Not if SCOTUS says that the Federal government may not mandate the purchase of insurance. What is considered contradictory to the constitution for one part of U.S. government may not be so for another. (see declarations of war)

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may ban sodomy.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

Because all of those are expressly forbidden by constitutional amendments, unlike auto insurance; your analogy is broken. Amendments =/= articles. There is a certain article granting the Federal Gov't the ability to regulate interstate commerce, yet not the legal jurisdiction to mandate purchases. And there is no amendment denying specifically state governments from requiring the purchase of insurance. So they may via the 10th amendment. Please get your technicalities in order.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Not if SCOTUS says that the Federal government may not mandate the purchase of insurance. What is considered contradictory to the constitution for one part of U.S. government may not be so for another. (see declarations of war)

coolbeans90

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may ban sodomy.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

Because all of those are expressly forbidden by constitutional amendments. Unlike auto insurance; your analogy is broken. There is a certain article granting the Federal Gov't the ability to regulate interstate commerce, yet not the legal jurisdiction to mandate purchases. And there is no amendment denying specifically state governments from requiring the purchase of insurance. So they may via the 10th amendment. Please get your technicalities in order.

If the federal government can't do it, neither can the states.

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

Theokhoth

Mostly. There are some rights that have been held not to be incorporated against the states. And there's also the matter that that deals with things explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, whereas as I understand it the argument in this case is simply that the Constitution does not provide for the authority of Congress to do what it's doing here (and thus that it is something the states should decide for themselves). There's no amendment saying "Congress shall make no law regulating health insurance."

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] If the federal government can't do it, neither can the states.

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may ban sodomy.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

Theokhoth

Because all of those are expressly forbidden by constitutional amendments. Unlike auto insurance; your analogy is broken. There is a certain article granting the Federal Gov't the ability to regulate interstate commerce, yet not the legal jurisdiction to mandate purchases. And there is no amendment denying specifically state governments from requiring the purchase of insurance. So they may via the 10th amendment. Please get your technicalities in order.

You're conflating all parts of the constitution, articles, amendments, etc., and assuming that they are all enforced in the same manner. They aren't. It isn't a constitutional amendment that is related to this lawsuit. It doesn't matter to the states regardless, considering that the clause in question (the commerce clause) mentions only congress, and its allegedly derived ability to mandate purchases from it. So, according to the logic you are using here, the states can't mandate auto insurance anyway. Fortunately, what isn't legal for the Federal Government to do isn't the same as what the state governments may do. If the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is struck down, it will not affect auto insurance laws, nor the individual mandate in Massachusetts etc. Ad hominems are cute though.

EDIT: I actually do not know whether or not that individual mandate is actually unconstitutional or not, nor have I made a claim in this, or any other thread one way or the other. To say otherwise seems a tad disingenuous.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Federal Court rulings supersede state laws. (If it's ruled unconstitutional, then no state may have it.)

Theokhoth

Federal law, when in conflict with state law supersedes state law. However, that doesn't mean that the state law is bound by the exact same legal framework. The Federal Gov't is capable of regulating interstate commerce via the commerce clause. It ONLY refers to the Federal government as it explicitly mentions Congress. This makes the lawsuit completely irrelevant to state law. Furthermore, according to the 10th amendment, powers not enumerated to the Federal government are reserved by the states and people respectively. Hence, state governments may in point of fact legislate regulation provided that it doesn't conflict with Federal law.

You're so cute, trying to explain the law to everybody. Unfortunately, you have no clue how it works. I'll put it in simple terms for you...

If the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot do something, THAT DOES NOT mean the states cannot do it. THAT DOES NOT "set the framework for the law in all fifty states," whatever that's even supposed to mean. Most of the time, when the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot do something across the board, it does so precisely because it wants to leave the decision up to individual states. The Constitution does NOT apply to the states except in two circumstances: First, it applies to the states where there is what is termed a textually demonstrable commitment to the states, which is essentially a clause in the given section that says "this applies to the states." Second, it applies to the states if the Supreme Court chooses to incorporate it via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or another section where there is a textually demonstrable commitment (but the 14th Amendment is the most common).

The Court hears very, very specific questions, and scope of their ruling is limited to those questions. In this case, the question will be, "can the federal government mandate health insurance purchases by citizens?" If the answer is no, it ONLY MEANS that the federal government cannot mandate health insurance purhcases by citizens. The states can still do it until the question of, "can the states mandate health insurance purchases by citizens" reaches the Court.

Federal court rulings do NOT supersede state law. In fact, federal district courts must follow the laws of the states in which they sit. Questions of state law between citizens of the same state cannot even be HEARD by a federal court. There must be either an interstate controversy or a federal question (this is basic subject matter jurisdiction). In almost all cases, the only way a federal ruling will directly supersede a state law is if it is made by the Supreme Court, and if it directly addresses the state law.

I'm tired of explaining this, but suffice it to say, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Nor do you have any idea of how the state and fedeal court systems work. I suggest law school.