|
mnottertail -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/3/2011 7:50:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I am still reading this shit. ANY insurance...repeat ANY insurance mandated by ANY state or the fed is a mandate to fucking buy insurance...period. If ANY of it is constitutional it is ALL constitutional.
Now that I have a few extra mintues, let me dumb it down to your level.
Constitution:
Dear Federal Government, you have purview over and can regulate/legislate in areas A, B, C. If you step into anything that is not specifically A,B,C it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Dear Anyone other than the Federal Government: The Feds can tell you what to do regarding A, B, C. I don't care what you do in any other area that I am silent on.
So in the context of your nonsensical statement, mandatory health care insurance is NOT in the Constitution. A FEDERAL law to that effect is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Citing the Commerce Clause (which regulates INTERSTATE COMMERCE) as making mandatory health insurance part of the Constitution is particularly asinine because it is the Federal government itself that says that health insurance CANNOT be sold interstate.
But STATE mandatory health insurance (or auto insurance) is NOT in the Constitution, and a State can do whatever it wants in those areas.
Got it?
Wilbur, MCCulloch V. Maryland - 1819, and your Ace Ventura impression of talking out of your ass appear to be unreconcilable, much as your laffer curve, and your advising the giants of business, and most other subjects which you are to a fault incorrect on, or simply prevaricating upon. The enumerated vs implied powers was dealt with, and there are implied powers.
Chief Justice Marshall <opinion excerpt>
But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.
A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation.
In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.
(this guy here.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall
I would point out to you that this opinion has not been encroached upon in any way these -------lo-----------nearly 200 years.
You may have a hysterical view of our constitution, but not a constitutional one. If you want to change that law and precedent, perhaps you should know some, or find somebody that actually knows some law, and go to the supreme court with it.
I suggest you read up on the constitution, the law, and just about everything else other than extemporaneously speaking precisely 180 degrees away from truth. You got that going for you.
|
|
|
|
