Health Care Bill Constitutionality?

ponderingturtle said:
That is hardly new either, look at how much Wyoming got per capita for anti terrorism money vs say NY. That it is an unfunded mandate for everyone but nebraska is the only real difference.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that's even comparable. In this case the law actually applies differently to Nebraska.
 
Alt+F4 said:
If the 14th Amendment actually gave Americans equal protection under the law then gays would be allowed to marry. However, like straight people, Nebraskans are somehow special.

Welcome to, as a poster put it recently:
Obama: Bush III
Click to expand...


A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man. Why he would want to is another question.

If you mean he should have the right to “marry” a man, then that's just nonsense. Marriage is, by definition, a special kind of union between a man and a woman. That's marriage it has always been, and that's what it will always be. To allow a man to “marry” another man doesn't make a marriage; it only makes a foul mockery of the real thing.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
To allow a man to “marry” another man doesn't make a marriage; it only makes a foul mockery of the real thing.
Click to expand...

[off-topic]

Although I do not agree with it, I can at least grasp the linguistic argument for why the word "marriage" might not apply to two men or two women. What I don't understand is this:

Suppose we stipulate for the sake of argument that the words "marry" and "marriage" can only apply to one man and one woman, by definition. What is it about two men or two women saying they are married (or that they want the right to marry) that is necessarily "foul" or a "mockery"? It seems to me that the most you could say under these assumptions is that it is an incorrect use of language.

Were I to call a dog a cat, would you say that it was a foul mockery of the cat?

[\off-topic]
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If you mean he should have the right to “marry” a man, then that's just nonsense. Marriage is, by definition, a special kind of union between a man and a woman. That's marriage it has always been, and that's what it will always be.

To allow a man to “marry” another man doesn't make a marriage; it only makes a foul mockery of the real thing.
Click to expand...

Actually marriages now are a foul mockery of polygamous marriages. They were here first.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Marriage is, by definition, a special kind of union between a man and a woman. That's marriage it has always been, and that's what it will always be.
Click to expand...

Uh...You're saying that the definition of marriage "has always been" and "will always be" between "a man and a woman?" Seriously? You're a freaking Mormon!
 
This thread is en embodiment of my nerd pet peeve: Arguing constitutionality without citing court doctrine. Everyone with an opinion thinks they are an expert.

If you are going to claim this is unconstitutional, your best bet is to claim it is not a good faith extention of the commerce clause power.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Uh...You're saying that the definition of marriage "has always been" and "will always be" between "a man and a woman?" Seriously? You're a freaking Mormon!
Click to expand...

He is? Christ, I've debated the gay marriage issue with him before. Wish I had known that sooner.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If you mean he should have the right to “marry” a man, then that's just nonsense. Marriage is, by definition, a special kind of union between a man and a woman. That's marriage it has always been, and that's what it will always be. To allow a man to “marry” another man doesn't make a marriage; it only makes a foul mockery of the real thing.
Click to expand...

If you personally feel that gay marriage is a foul mockery I'm sure you're doing your best to get the 14th Amendment repealed. I know the folks over at Stormfront have constant threads on how the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. You should hook up with them if you haven't already.

Also, hate to tell you this, but legal gay marriage already exists in many places so your statement that [straight marriage] is what it always will be tells me you're probably a teen that doesn't keep up on the news.

Back to the OP, since Obama continues to disregard the 14th Amendment in regard to gay marriage, why would any believe he would take it into consideration when proposing health care legislation?
 
Alt+F4 said:
If you personally feel that gay marriage is a foul mockery I'm sure you're doing your best to get the 14th Amendment repealed. I know the folks over at Stormfront have constant threads on how the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional...
Click to expand...

How the heck can an Amendment to the Constitution be unconstitutional? :confused:
 
mhaze said:
Disregarding Joethe Juggler's manic droning, which does not affect the actual discussion, there is a serious discussion concerning the constitutionality of these schemes.
Click to expand...

You mean where I keep asking you to make a case for why this bill is unconstitutional?

Yeah, it seems that putting the burden on those making the claim isn't part of this discussion.

Let's see, are you going to cite a chain-letter e-mail again? ;)

____
KingMerv00 said:
This thread is en embodiment of my nerd pet peeve: Arguing constitutionality without citing court doctrine. Everyone with an opinion thinks they are an expert.
Click to expand...
Watch out. When I try that approach, Mhaze calls it "droning" that is irrelevant to the discussion.

If you are going to claim this is unconstitutional, your best bet is to claim it is not a good faith extention of the commerce clause power.
Click to expand...
And if they try that approach, they'll be arguing against case law that's been around since the New Deal.
 
KingMerv00 said:
This thread is en embodiment of my nerd pet peeve: Arguing constitutionality without citing court doctrine. Everyone with an opinion thinks they are an expert.

If you are going to claim this is unconstitutional, your best bet is to claim it is not a good faith extention of the commerce clause power.
Click to expand...

I think I can understand how you feel. Both of the law course I took (Law and Politics and Law and the Constitution) instilled the way the US legal system works. It also put ideas from specific cases (the Lemon test for example) into my head. Then some mook thinks that the freedom of religion means they can force kids to sing Jesus songs and pray during class. It must be much worse for someone like yourself who knows this stuff way, way more than most other people on the board.

It makes one's head hurt.
 
It's called government failure.

If getting the 60 votes were a market mechanism, and the 60th person held out for a bigger piece of the pie, it would be called, "market failure," or specifically, the "holdout problem."

But if the government does it, it's okay, because "...well it happens all the time."

As long as your guy is in power it's fine, but if this happens when one of those book burning, evolution denying, bible thumping republicans is in office, it's an atrocity.

edit: trying to bring the OP back here...
 
Last edited:
kevinquinnyo said:
It's called government failure.

If getting the 60 votes were a market mechanism, and the 60th person held out for a bigger piece of the pie, it would be called, "market failure," or specifically, the "holdout problem."

But if the government does it, it's okay, because "...well it happens all the time."

As long as your guy is in power it's fine, but if this happens when one of those book burning, evolution denying, bible thumping republicans is in office, it's an atrocity.

edit: trying to bring the OP back here...
Click to expand...

If what happens? Bills are passed?
 
An "individual mandate" exists in Massachusetts, does anyone know if it has been successfully challenged yet? It doesn't seem to have been.
 
Tumblehome said:
Not sure, but aren't you already forced to buy car insurance if you drive a car?
Click to expand...

First of all, mandatory insurance for cars is done at the state level and the requirements vary from state to state. States have the authority to pass laws on every issue except those few reserved to the federal government. And neither car insurance, or health insurance, are reserved to the federal government. Since the state has the authority to say whether you can drive or not, they can set the conditions for doing so. Furthermore, people have the choice of not driving a car. You have a choice. But democrats want to give you no choice regarding health insurance. And it is not one of the types of federal taxes permitted under Article I or the 16th Amendment ... taxes on purchases, per-capita taxes and income. There is nothing in the US constitution that gives the government to power to force someone to buy a product. Nothing. As the CBO stated back in 1994 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55910 ), "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
 
How about the roughly 800,000 seniors in Florida (all in 3 heavily democratic districts) who will be exempt from potential benefit cuts by private Medicare Advantage plans thanks to language added to the bill to buy Sen Bill Nelson's vote? They say it's going to cost the rest of us 3 to 5 billion dollars to give those democrats that gift. Is that Constitutional? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom