Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

['SkersRule]

Where exactly does it say that Congress has the authority to make you, me, or anyone else buy anything? I want you to provide the exact language within the Constitution.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes . . ."

 

The among several states means that when there are issues pertaining to a disagreement with a person in one state and doing business with a company in another state. Or when two companies in different states have a disagreement and it affects commerce. That's when congress can step in and regulate. And in point of fact they created the Federal Trade Commission or FTC to do exactly that. But Obama and company are trying to stretch that particular clause to say it gives Congress the defacto right to force you, me, or anyone else to buy anything, through legislation, and that is absolutely absurd.

[krill]

If the court rules against an individual mandate, I assume the first order or business for house Republicans will be revising text in the emergency medical treatment act to ensure that anyone who opts out of health insurance and is unable prove financial responsibility can be readily identified by emergency services for no treatment. If they are going to go after their own idea (an individual mandate) with such vitriol we just have to assume that they will follow through with the the less pleasant option for responsibility, denial of emergency care for the uninsured.

[carlfense]

The among several states means that when there are issues pertaining to a disagreement with a person in one state and doing business with a company in another state. Or when two companies in different states have a disagreement and it affects commerce. That's when congress can step in and regulate. And in point of fact they created the Federal Trade Commission or FTC to do exactly that. But to try and stretch that particular clause to say it gives Congress the defacto right to force you, me, or anyone else to buy anything, through legislation, is absolutely absurd.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court it means quite a bit more than that. Why should I take your interpretation over the interpretation of the Supreme Court? Because you say that it's absurd?

 

Edit: http://www.law.corne...17_0111_ZO.html

['SkersRule]

The among several states means that when there are issues pertaining to a disagreement with a person in one state and doing business with a company in another state. Or when two companies in different states have a disagreement and it affects commerce. That's when congress can step in and regulate. And in point of fact they created the Federal Trade Commission or FTC to do exactly that. But to try and stretch that particular clause to say it gives Congress the defacto right to force you, me, or anyone else to buy anything, through legislation, is absolutely absurd.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court it means quite a bit more than that. Why should I take your interpretation over the interpretation of the Supreme Court? Because you say that it's absurd?

 

Regulation of commerce bewteen the states is not equal to, nor does it mean, Congress has the ability to compel anyone to buy anything. If carlfense is a company in Ohio that sells widgets and skersrule is a company in Nevada which also sells widgets; and we get into a dispute because your state laws say x and mine say y--then Congress has the right to regulate that--not to tell consumers which widgets to buy or how many to buy.

[carlfense]

The among several states means that when there are issues pertaining to a disagreement with a person in one state and doing business with a company in another state. Or when two companies in different states have a disagreement and it affects commerce. That's when congress can step in and regulate. And in point of fact they created the Federal Trade Commission or FTC to do exactly that. But to try and stretch that particular clause to say it gives Congress the defacto right to force you, me, or anyone else to buy anything, through legislation, is absolutely absurd.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court it means quite a bit more than that. Why should I take your interpretation over the interpretation of the Supreme Court? Because you say that it's absurd?

 

Regulation of commerce bewteen the states is not equal to, nor does it mean, Congress has the ability to compel anyone to buy anything. If carlfense is a company in Ohio that sells widgets and skersrule is a company in Nevada which also sells widgets; and we get into a dispute because your state laws say x and mine say y--then Congress has the right to regulate that--not to tell consumers which widgets to buy or how many to buy.

The Supreme Court of the United States says that it means more than that.

 

Why should I take your word over their word? You didn't really answer that question.

[JJ Husker]

Where exactly does it say that Congress has the authority to make you, me, or anyone else buy anything? I want you to provide the exact language within the Constitution.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes . . ."

You are exactly right in that is the clause they will mangle to mean something totally different than it was ever intended. There is a good book that lists many instances of the USC twisting the commerce clause to suit governments desires; Lies the Government Told You by Andrew Napolitano. One of the things I do not particularly like about our legal system is how precedents, no matter how ill conceived or wrong they were, are then used as a basis for further decisions. It does not take more than a couple bad interpretations or decisions based on a few prior bad precedents to get the intent 180 degrees from where it was originally intended to be. IMO, the Commerce Clause has been one of the most abused portions of the USC.

['SkersRule]

In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for the appellee's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. He was given notice of such allotment in July of 1940, before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested. He sowed, however, 23 acres, and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess acreage 239 bushels, which, under the terms of the Act as amended on May 26, 1941, constituted farm marketing excess, subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11 in all. The appellee has not paid the penalty, and he has not postponed or avoided it by storing the excess under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, or by delivering it up to the Secretary. The Committee, therefore, refused him a marketing card, which was, under the terms of Regulations promulgated by the Secretary, necessary to protect a buyer from liability to the penalty and upon its protecting lien. The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat

 

carlfense, The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which you cited in the link above, still does not tell the average consumer that he or she has to buy wheat or any other commodity/good/service including health care. And it is a profound stretch to imagine that the case you cited spells out or justifies Congress' law to force anyone to buy healthcare.

 

And contrary to the beliefs of some the Supreme Court can be wrong.

['SkersRule]

In other words, The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 regulates the supply of wheat--it does not force consumers to buy said wheat.

[carlfense]

Original intent as argued by Scalia, Napolitano, and others is one interpretation of constitutional law. There are other analytical frameworks.

[carlfense]

Edit. (phone)

[akita]

http://www.infowars.com/infowars-com-saves-lives-dr-russell-blaylock-exposes-medical-genocide/ if you have one hour I would take the time to listen to this. and zoogies if you see this watch the interview with the neurosurgeon. This guy is really good and might have people asking alot of questions.

[JJ Husker]

Original intent as argued by Scalia, Napolitano, and others is one interpretation of constitutional law. There are other analytical frameworks.

 

Well, if you ask me, it is some of those other "analytical frameworks" that are causing a lot of our problems. If we are unable to keep interpretation of the Constitution within reasonable scope of the original intention, particularly where it prevents our government from doing its will at our expense, then it should be put to use as toilet paper rather than treates as some glorified but fictional ideal.

[carlfense]

Original intent as argued by Scalia, Napolitano, and others is one interpretation of constitutional law. There are other analytical frameworks.

 

Well, if you ask me, it is some of those other "analytical frameworks" that are causing a lot of our problems. If we are unable to keep interpretation of the Constitution within reasonable scope of the original intention, particularly where it prevents our government from doing its will at our expense, then it should be put to use as toilet paper rather than treates as some glorified but fictional ideal.

Actually, I don't think that I did ask you but I do appreciate your input.

 

We'll see where the chips fall.

[JJ Husker]

Original intent as argued by Scalia, Napolitano, and others is one interpretation of constitutional law. There are other analytical frameworks.

 

Well, if you ask me, it is some of those other "analytical frameworks" that are causing a lot of our problems. If we are unable to keep interpretation of the Constitution within reasonable scope of the original intention, particularly where it prevents our government from doing its will at our expense, then it should be put to use as toilet paper rather than treates as some glorified but fictional ideal.

Actually, I don't think that I did ask you but I do appreciate your input.

 

We'll see where the chips fall.

 

No, you didn't ask me directly but you did start and reply on this topic in a public forum. Thanks for being appreciative of my input. I'd hate to think there were certain viewpoints you would not appreciate.

[carlfense]

No, you didn't ask me directly but you did start and reply on this topic in a public forum. Thanks for being appreciative of my input. I'd hate to think there were certain viewpoints you would not appreciate.

The topic I started was about predicting how the Supreme Court will rule. Naturally, the armchair constitutional scholars (myself included) can't resist throwing in our two cents.