Is the new health care bill unconstitutional?

[retro]

And it still makes so much sense that you still haven't managed to present a good argument against it since the last thread I made it in.

Except that arguments have been made against it.

You can claim that there's no threat of foreign invasion, but it's always a possibility. In addition, it's not just foreign threats that are considered, you have to look at domestic ones. This country wouldn't even exist if not for an armed militia that was tired of being treated the way that the King of England treated them... taxation without representation, etc. So they revolted against the government and founded what would become the greatest and most free nation in the world. The 2nd Amendment covers the defense of tyrannical governments as well. As I've presented in a number of different threads on this subject when you've claimed it to be antiquated.

 

[retro]

Asked and answered many times. No reason to believe you'd read it again, so I won't type it again.

eta:

Here's the "argument": we're different.

Now get over it.

:24:

that works too

 

[Alien Allen]

Not completely but you've got to admit the world has kind of moved on historically and politically since the constitution was written, take the stuff about owning weapons for example, there is absolutely no threat of the USA getting invaded now so that the country would rely on common citizens taking up arms, high tech weapons like what is around today would also be inconceivable to people 300 years ago. A guy who would shit himself at the sight of an aeroplane really isn't in a great position to make laws about weapons, lol!

It is not a fear of our getting invaded. It is a matter of making sure the govt can't pull a Hitler on us where a society is disarmed. If every door they knocked on to collect people for the gas chambers they found an armed family I think things would have been different

 

[Francis]

Not completely but you've got to admit the world has kind of moved on historically and politically since the constitution was written, take the stuff about owning weapons for example, there is absolutely no threat of the USA getting invaded now so that the country would rely on common citizens taking up arms, high tech weapons like what is around today would also be inconceivable to people 300 years ago. A guy who would shit himself at the sight of an aeroplane really isn't in a great position to make laws about weapons, lol!

Except that arguments have been made against it.

You can claim that there's no threat of foreign invasion, but it's always a possibility. In addition, it's not just foreign threats that are considered, you have to look at domestic ones. This country wouldn't even exist if not for an armed militia that was tired of being treated the way that the King of England treated them... taxation without representation, etc. So they revolted against the government and founded what would become the greatest and most free nation in the world. The 2nd Amendment covers the defense of tyrannical governments as well. As I've presented in a number of different threads on this subject when you've claimed it to be antiquated.

It is not a fear of our getting invaded. It is a matter of making sure the govt can't pull a Hitler on us where a society is disarmed. If every door they knocked on to collect people for the gas chambers they found an armed family I think things would have been different

Peter the way I view it, it's quite simple.. Since the day the caveman invented the first club the NRA approached him :sarcasm to make sure he became a member and got him elected to ensure US Citizen rights to bare ( or was that bear ) arms.. This will NEVER Change..

Nobody can even agree on why they are required.. Differing views on the same topic..

To put it simply Accountable is right..

Here's the "argument": we're different.

Now get over it.

But Accountable must remember that same mentality is held by, Iran, Afghanistan and any other fanatical Muslim not to mention North Korea radicals who believe "we're different" and should have nukes as well as everyone else who has the power.

You see, those people also believe in Liberty of their own kind, right or wrong and self preservation is telling them that we ( the free world ) are going to kill them, so they better arm themselves to the teeth with the big sticks like the caveman did with todays weapons as they see what is a threat to them.. The irony of it all is we build weapons to destroy ourselves in the names of self preservation.. Quite ironic don`t you think..

 

[Peter Parka]

Except that arguments have been made against it.

You can claim that there's no threat of foreign invasion, but it's always a possibility. .

If you think there is any chance of an invasion which your army couldn't handle, I call that paranoid delusion rather than a good argument.

:24:

that works too

Yeah, I thought that would probably strike well with your ability to reason things through

It is not a fear of our getting invaded. It is a matter of making sure the govt can't pull a Hitler on us where a society is disarmed. If every door they knocked on to collect people for the gas chambers they found an armed family I think things would have been different

Once again, not a good argument, just another case of paranoid delusion

 

[Accountable]

For the love of Pete! Not you, Pete. Another Pete.

The thread is about the "Healthcare" scam as it relates, or doesn't relate, to the US Constitution. Let's keep it there until we've at least boiled it down to personal insults again, 'kay?

 

[Peter Parka]

I'll bet anyone here, any amount of money that the USA dosen't get invaded and the US army beaten or the US government dosen't go around throwing its law abiding citizens into concentration camps in, oh, the next 20 years. Anyone want to take up my bet? No? :24:

 

[Accountable]

No. What's your opinion of the constitutionality of our new "healthcare" insurance takeover?

 

[Peter Parka]

No. What's your opinion of the constitutionality of our new "healthcare" insurance takeover?

I haven't got one because I think the Constitution is taken far too seriously because of the reasons I outlined in my first post in this thread. I base my opinions on politics on whether it logically seems like a good idea or not, not because of what some men wrote a few hundred years ago. :thumbup

 

[Accountable]

Then why not ignore what doesn't concern you in the least and let the interested parties chat?

 

[Peter Parka]

Then why not ignore what doesn't concern you in the least and let the interested parties chat?

You seem to be confusing "what you personally dont like to hear" with "what dosen't concern me." This thread is half to do with health care and half to do with the constitution. I voiced my opinion on the constitution. No one is forcing you to read my opinion if it upsets you that much.

 

[Codrus]

i personally believe that the people who drafted the constitution worded it so that it could last and cover just about anything that may arise in the future. it is a travesty that some of those who have been elected into office shredded it and used it for toilet paper

 

[Minor Axis]

Trying to justify it with the "interstate commerce" clause is equally asinine, since most states don't allow you to buy insurance across borders anyway; therefore it's not Constitutional in that regard.

What do you mean? Insurance companies sell to people regardless of which state they live in don't they?

Here's my fundamental flaw with your question Tim: The onus is on the people who pass the law to prove it IS in the Constitution, not on opponents to prove it isn't.

The complaint is that it is not constitutional, not that it is. So the people complaining should say why, shouldn't they? As a rule Lawyers don't run to the Supreme Court to complain something is legal although I do remember Retro's post about a law being struck down by a lower court.

In My Constitutional Education thread I found evidence that the "general welfare" clause could be interpreted differently depending on which founding father you agree with. Another example often held up is Social Security. I realize the country was in extremis when it was created but why has there been no real movement to get rid of it in the last 80 years?

 

[Accountable]

Yeh but the unconstitutional argument goes "it's not supported in the constitution." Then the opponent says "Where?" to which we reply "anywhere."

We'd win every single time if the onus was on the disprovers.

 

[dt3]

Hard to quote on my phone, but this is for Minor: the McCarran-Ferguson Act allows individual states to regulate their own healthcare market. Here's an interesting read:
http://www.ncpa.org/healthcare/interstate-competition-in-the-individual-health-insurance-marketplace

 

[Minor Axis]

Hard to quote on my phone, but this is for Minor: the McCarran-Ferguson Act allows individual states to regulate their own healthcare market. Here's an interesting read:
http://www.ncpa.org/healthcare/interstate-competition-in-the-individual-health-insurance-marketplace

I agree with that. From personal experience I know that each state can place their own stipulations on insurance in general. I've seen this first hand moving from state to state. But you said insurance companies could not sell across state borders which is not accurate.

Yeh but the unconstitutional argument goes "it's not supported in the constitution." Then the opponent says "Where?" to which we reply "anywhere."

We'd win every single time if the onus was on the disprovers.

Would you say this is how the typical Constitution argument goes? I'm still not an expert but it appears to me the argument falls onto the General Welfare clause. So now we can sit around and argue what the Founding Father's intended.

 

[Accountable]

I agree with that. From personal experience I know that each state can place their own stipulations on insurance in general. I've seen this first hand moving from state to state. But you said insurance companies could not sell across state borders which is not accurate.

I think it is accurate. They can't sell a Louisiana policy in Texas. They have to create a Texas policy to be sold only in that state.

 

[dt3]

I agree with that. From personal experience I know that each state can place their own stipulations on insurance in general. I've seen this first hand moving from state to state. But you said insurance companies could not sell across state borders which is not accurate.

Example: Maine has mandated that health insurance cover breast reduction surgery. Why would an Iowa company put that in a plan just to open a relatively tiny market?

It may be legal to sell across lines (although I believe many states still outlaw it. A quick Google search confirmed Idaho does, for example), but it isn't feasible for the companies in most cases to do it anyway because of the drastically different requirements.