That's an incorrect interpretation of the opposition to the ACA. There is no allowance for this at the Federal level and Congress didn't bother to make it so by amending the Constitution, which would've been the only correct way to do it. They knew that would never fly, so they rammed it through using every dirty trick in the book.
1) I suspect you are not an expert on Constitutional law. So far the courts have upheld most of the ACA's provisions. Most of those with actual expertise in this field predict that the Supreme Court will uphold it, including several Harvard Law School professors. Incidentally, Obama was himself a Harvard Law School professor, specializing in Constitutional law, which is a far more illustrious (and relevant) educational background than that held by his predecessor, whom you no doubt admired.
2) You couldn't care less about the constitutionality of the ACA. You are simply opposed to any and all social programs including universal health care (but god forbid anyone should threaten your Medicare or Social Security benefits, which are also socialist programs.) This places you at odds not only with most Americans, but also the rest of the world's developed nations, all of which have universal health care coverage and all of which have better quality health care at lower costs than the United States.
3) The only people with a legitimate grievance towards universal health care are those who are a) very wealthy and therefore, b) can afford to pay for the best medical care out of pocket, while also c) immensely greedy and selfish and wanting no part in subsidizing health care for those who can't afford it. But the vast majority of those opposed to universal health care are actually people who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the empty rhetoric of the party of the rich. When polled about specific benefits and policies of the Affordable Care Act without mentioning the program by name, a vast majority express positive opinions, even those who profess an opposition to the ACA. Since I doubt you are a billionaire, this places you squarely in the latter category.
A person who violates the laws of the country they are entering is already a lawbreaker, by definition. If "everyone" is breaking the law, then why is there a law to begin with? I'm not from Alabama, but immigration law is supposed to be enforced by the Feds. Are they currently doing that?
Where in my post did I mention anything about "everyone breaking the law"?
My point was that the Alabama anti-immigration law was a) fueled by racism, and b) laughably ineffective in its supposed objectives of reducing terrorism and drug-related crime while saving jobs for "real" Americans. The fact that many Alabamans still support the law despite evidence illustrating that it did not achieve its intended goals illustrates that it's not about jobs or crime or drugs or upholding the rule of law, but more about ugly racism, plain and simple. Given Alabama's history, this is hardly a shocker.
Regardless, a lot of laws are broken in our country every day by all sort of people from all walks of life, yet people like you are very particular about which laws you want strictly enforced and which law breakers you want severely punished. This specificity betrays your true motives.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that that part of the preamble is not something that translates into a legal requirement the Federal government must act on. I guess you missed that ruling.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3]
Agreed. Jacobsen v. Mass. That was 1904. Also noteworthy - it was a relatively narrow ruling on a specific point of law and has never been considered as a broad precedent, and so far is the ONLY settled case to address a claim based on the Preamble. Subsequently, in 1946, in Richfield Oil v. Sate Board, we saw this: "All words in the Constitution are meaningful. Quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570-71: 'Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning...' "
Apparently for me and many others, promoting the general Welfare has meaning and a sense of what we're all about as a people and as a nation, for you it vehemently doesn't. So be it, but I'm clear on where the majority of Americans land on this and similar questions.
Agreed. Jacobsen v. Mass. That was 1904. Also noteworthy - it was a relatively narrow ruling on a specific point of law and has never been considered as a broad precedent, and so far is the ONLY settled case to address a claim based on the Preamble. Subsequently, in 1946, in Richfield Oil v. Sate Board, we saw this: "All words in the Constitution are meaningful. Quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570-71: 'Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning...' "
Apparently for me and many others, promoting the general Welfare has meaning and a sense of what we're all about as a people and as a nation, for you it vehemently doesn't. So be it, but I'm clear on where the majority of Americans land on this and similar questions.
The Constitution has a great deal of meaning for me personally and I consider those words libelous and cowardly. It is with great alarm I've watched the protection of our guaranteed rights under the Constitution deteriorate and be severely undermined under administrations both Republican and Democrat, especially most recently under Obama and Bush.
North Korea is a modern socialist utopia. Why would I want to move there? I suggest that all liberals pack their bags instead. It would suit them much better than me.
It is neither modern nor socialist nor an utopia.
I think conservatives,poor haters should consider living in a society with no police force since they see "gummint" interference selectively in things which do not suit their needs.
I think conservatives,poor haters should consider living in a society with no police force since they see "gummint" interference selectively in things which do not suit their needs.
I support the police. Every civilized society needs a good police force. It's the liberals and Obama voters who are against the police, criticizing them recently, attacking them, shooting at them, demonizing them. The police is the enemy of many liberals.
Quite sure your position on the police changes based on what effort the police are performing. For example, on gun control efforts. i dare you to say I am wrong. lol.
I support the police. Every civilized society needs a good police force. It's the liberals and Obama voters who are against the police, criticizing them recently, attacking them, shooting at them, demonizing them. The police is the enemy of many liberals.
Wouldn't a "good" police force be one that is accountable and doesn't prejudicially target and literally attack and kill particular demographics?
Seems to me that it is the liberals and Obama voters that are pushing for a "better" police force. That's not what you do to an enemy.
Quite sure your position on the police changes based on what effort the police are performing. For example, on gun control efforts. i dare you to say I am wrong. lol.
Police don’t support gun control; I’m not sure of your original position thereon.
Guh this is just painful to read. Everyone keeps saying oh but the ACA got rid of pre-existing conditions. I'm, yeah but guess what else would have? A simple bill that didn't overh the whole thing and make it demonstrably more expensive than it already was. Again, most of the things people like about the ACA could have EASILY passed as a single item. Pass a law that says they can't refuse a person because of pre-existing conditions and there us go, no overhaul needed it really IS that simple but they wanted to jack with the whole thing and try to pit the opponents against people who have cancer which is a completely false and idiotic choice.*shakes head*
Take out just pre-existing conditions and the health insurance costs explode: people waiting until they are diagnosed and then signing up.... the underlying reasoning behind the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney crafting the their personal responsibility mandate. Looking to not further break the foundation of insurance: shared risk.
You might want to discuss that #1 with John Adams and the rest of The Founders who established an individual mandate soon after establishing The Constitution? 1798, so it would be fresh in their minds eh? Oh and that mandated health coverage fee supported federally built, operated and payed for healthcare establishments. So given The Founders knew their creation one can forecast strict constructionists of The Constitution would disagree with you as well. Agreeing instead with The Founders.
You might want to discuss that #1 with John Adams and the rest of The Founders who established an individual mandate soon after establishing The Constitution? 1798, so it would be fresh in their minds eh? Oh and that mandated health coverage fee supported federally built, operated and payed for healthcare establishments. So given The Founders knew their creation one can forecast strict constructionists of The Constitution would disagree with you as well. Agreeing instead with The Founders.
Please resubmit your comment. This response makes no sense.
Take out just pre-existing conditions and the health insurance costs explode: people waiting until they are diagnosed and then signing up.... the underlying reasoning behind the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney crafting the their personal responsibility mandate. Looking to not further break the foundation of insurance: shared risk.
There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace. "Romneycare" was a state program, not a Federal one. Calling "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" the same thing is absurd. Show me the "Obamacare" program that was developed by and for the state of Illinois before Obama was president, then let's talk.
Please resubmit your comment. This response makes no sense.
LOL, it would if you had any familiarity with the subject at all . Try googling the history of the Public Heralth Service, or President John Adams for that matter. Second president of the United States? One of The Founders conservatives often swoon over? Signer of legislation establishing a mandatory federal fee collected for the building, manning and running of a federal healthcare system?
"There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace." and yet that is precisely what President John Adams and the Congress of 1798 did.
So I'd suggest between some internet "expert" and the people who actually wrote The Constitution? I'll go with The Founders.
LOL, it would if you had any familiarity with the subject at all . Try googling the history of the Public Heralth Service, or President John Adams for that matter. Second president of the United States? One of The Founders conservatives often swoon over? Signer of legislation establishing a mandatory federal fee collected for the building, manning and running of a federal healthcare system?
You are referring to a service provided solely to the Marines? Um... yeah. That's not remotely the same thing.
"There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace." and yet that is precisely what President John Adams and the Congress of 1798 did.
So I'd suggest between some internet "expert" and the people who actually wrote The Constitution? I'll go with The Founders.
Again, not even close to what has happened with the ACA. A military hospital or system that serves only the military is not the same as Federal collusion with private insurance companies in a combined effort to interfere with and control health care and to force American citizens to participate. It's Soviet-era central planning at its worst... now in America!
Health care marketplaces may be established and run (even though I consider it a dumb idea) at the state level, not the Federal. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Constitution would acknowledge that this entire mess has been a power grab by Washington and connected special interests.
I presume that should Rand Paul be elected, he'll actively work with the Republican Congress to dismantle this. Other candidates, I'm not so sure. As a Libertarian, I'm extremely concerned about the growth and reach of government, in any part of the political spectrum, into our individual lives.
There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace. "Romneycare" was a state program, not a Federal one. Calling "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" the same thing is absurd. Show me the "Obamacare" program that was developed by and for the state of Illinois before Obama was president, then let's talk.
Oh, please. Only the willfully ignorant do not know that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who developed Romneycare, received nearly $400,000 in consultants fees to help President Obama develop Obamacare. According to Gruber, Romneycare and Obamacare are "basically...the same thing." The major difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is the source of funds used to ensure each program's financial viability. Your state-run Romneycare is subsidized using Federal funds--Medicaid, IIRC. Whether you live in Massachusetts, Mississippi, Kansas, or Montana, you are paying for Romneycare.
You may find much of this information in the 2011 Forbes Magazinereport by Forbes staff reporter Avik Roy. If you want additional information about Obamacare, Romneycare, or any other healthcare plan, then it is just a Google search away.
Comments
That's an incorrect interpretation of the opposition to the ACA. There is no allowance for this at the Federal level and Congress didn't bother to make it so by amending the Constitution, which would've been the only correct way to do it. They knew that would never fly, so they rammed it through using every dirty trick in the book.
1) I suspect you are not an expert on Constitutional law. So far the courts have upheld most of the ACA's provisions. Most of those with actual expertise in this field predict that the Supreme Court will uphold it, including several Harvard Law School professors. Incidentally, Obama was himself a Harvard Law School professor, specializing in Constitutional law, which is a far more illustrious (and relevant) educational background than that held by his predecessor, whom you no doubt admired.
2) You couldn't care less about the constitutionality of the ACA. You are simply opposed to any and all social programs including universal health care (but god forbid anyone should threaten your Medicare or Social Security benefits, which are also socialist programs.) This places you at odds not only with most Americans, but also the rest of the world's developed nations, all of which have universal health care coverage and all of which have better quality health care at lower costs than the United States.
3) The only people with a legitimate grievance towards universal health care are those who are a) very wealthy and therefore, b) can afford to pay for the best medical care out of pocket, while also c) immensely greedy and selfish and wanting no part in subsidizing health care for those who can't afford it. But the vast majority of those opposed to universal health care are actually people who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the empty rhetoric of the party of the rich. When polled about specific benefits and policies of the Affordable Care Act without mentioning the program by name, a vast majority express positive opinions, even those who profess an opposition to the ACA. Since I doubt you are a billionaire, this places you squarely in the latter category.
A person who violates the laws of the country they are entering is already a lawbreaker, by definition. If "everyone" is breaking the law, then why is there a law to begin with? I'm not from Alabama, but immigration law is supposed to be enforced by the Feds. Are they currently doing that?
Where in my post did I mention anything about "everyone breaking the law"?
My point was that the Alabama anti-immigration law was a) fueled by racism, and b) laughably ineffective in its supposed objectives of reducing terrorism and drug-related crime while saving jobs for "real" Americans. The fact that many Alabamans still support the law despite evidence illustrating that it did not achieve its intended goals illustrates that it's not about jobs or crime or drugs or upholding the rule of law, but more about ugly racism, plain and simple. Given Alabama's history, this is hardly a shocker.
Regardless, a lot of laws are broken in our country every day by all sort of people from all walks of life, yet people like you are very particular about which laws you want strictly enforced and which law breakers you want severely punished. This specificity betrays your true motives.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that that part of the preamble is not something that translates into a legal requirement the Federal government must act on. I guess you missed that ruling.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
Agreed. Jacobsen v. Mass. That was 1904. Also noteworthy - it was a relatively narrow ruling on a specific point of law and has never been considered as a broad precedent, and so far is the ONLY settled case to address a claim based on the Preamble. Subsequently, in 1946, in Richfield Oil v. Sate Board, we saw this: "All words in the Constitution are meaningful. Quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570-71: 'Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning...' "
Apparently for me and many others, promoting the general Welfare has meaning and a sense of what we're all about as a people and as a nation, for you it vehemently doesn't. So be it, but I'm clear on where the majority of Americans land on this and similar questions.
Agreed. Jacobsen v. Mass. That was 1904. Also noteworthy - it was a relatively narrow ruling on a specific point of law and has never been considered as a broad precedent, and so far is the ONLY settled case to address a claim based on the Preamble. Subsequently, in 1946, in Richfield Oil v. Sate Board, we saw this: "All words in the Constitution are meaningful. Quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570-71: 'Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning...' "
Apparently for me and many others, promoting the general Welfare has meaning and a sense of what we're all about as a people and as a nation, for you it vehemently doesn't. So be it, but I'm clear on where the majority of Americans land on this and similar questions.
The Constitution has a great deal of meaning for me personally and I consider those words libelous and cowardly. It is with great alarm I've watched the protection of our guaranteed rights under the Constitution deteriorate and be severely undermined under administrations both Republican and Democrat, especially most recently under Obama and Bush.
North Korea is a modern socialist utopia. Why would I want to move there? I suggest that all liberals pack their bags instead. It would suit them much better than me.
It is neither modern nor socialist nor an utopia.
I think conservatives,poor haters should consider living in a society with no police force since they see "gummint" interference selectively in things which do not suit their needs.
It is neither modern nor socialist nor an utopia.
I think conservatives,poor haters should consider living in a society with no police force since they see "gummint" interference selectively in things which do not suit their needs.
I support the police. Every civilized society needs a good police force. It's the liberals and Obama voters who are against the police, criticizing them recently, attacking them, shooting at them, demonizing them. The police is the enemy of many liberals.
I support the police. Every civilized society needs a good police force. It's the liberals and Obama voters who are against the police, criticizing them recently, attacking them, shooting at them, demonizing them. The police is the enemy of many liberals.
Wouldn't a "good" police force be one that is accountable and doesn't prejudicially target and literally attack and kill particular demographics?
Seems to me that it is the liberals and Obama voters that are pushing for a "better" police force. That's not what you do to an enemy.
Police don’t support gun control; I’m not sure of your original position thereon.
Bill Maher got it about right:
"Siri, I think there's something wrong with my heart"
Siri: "OK, I've found three theaters showing Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2"
Haha
Guh this is just painful to read. Everyone keeps saying oh but the ACA got rid of pre-existing conditions. I'm, yeah but guess what else would have? A simple bill that didn't overh the whole thing and make it demonstrably more expensive than it already was. Again, most of the things people like about the ACA could have EASILY passed as a single item. Pass a law that says they can't refuse a person because of pre-existing conditions and there us go, no overhaul needed it really IS that simple but they wanted to jack with the whole thing and try to pit the opponents against people who have cancer which is a completely false and idiotic choice.*shakes head*
Take out just pre-existing conditions and the health insurance costs explode: people waiting until they are diagnosed and then signing up.... the underlying reasoning behind the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney crafting the their personal responsibility mandate. Looking to not further break the foundation of insurance: shared risk.
How many of those other countries are republics with a constitution that expressly limits the powers of their Federal government?
"The four best legal arguments against Obamacare"
1. The individual mandate violates the original meaning of the Constitution.
2. The individual mandate rests on an unbounded and unprincipled assertion of Federal power.
3. The individual mandate cannot be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent.
4. The individual mandate threatens the foundations of contract law.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/24/4-best-legal-arguments-against-obamacare
You might want to discuss that #1 with John Adams and the rest of The Founders who established an individual mandate soon after establishing The Constitution? 1798, so it would be fresh in their minds eh? Oh and that mandated health coverage fee supported federally built, operated and payed for healthcare establishments. So given The Founders knew their creation one can forecast strict constructionists of The Constitution would disagree with you as well. Agreeing instead with The Founders.
You might want to discuss that #1 with John Adams and the rest of The Founders who established an individual mandate soon after establishing The Constitution? 1798, so it would be fresh in their minds eh? Oh and that mandated health coverage fee supported federally built, operated and payed for healthcare establishments. So given The Founders knew their creation one can forecast strict constructionists of The Constitution would disagree with you as well. Agreeing instead with The Founders.
Please resubmit your comment. This response makes no sense.
Take out just pre-existing conditions and the health insurance costs explode: people waiting until they are diagnosed and then signing up.... the underlying reasoning behind the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney crafting the their personal responsibility mandate. Looking to not further break the foundation of insurance: shared risk.
There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace. "Romneycare" was a state program, not a Federal one. Calling "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" the same thing is absurd. Show me the "Obamacare" program that was developed by and for the state of Illinois before Obama was president, then let's talk.
Please resubmit your comment. This response makes no sense.
LOL, it would if you had any familiarity with the subject at all . Try googling the history of the Public Heralth Service, or President John Adams for that matter. Second president of the United States? One of The Founders conservatives often swoon over? Signer of legislation establishing a mandatory federal fee collected for the building, manning and running of a federal healthcare system?
"There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace." and yet that is precisely what President John Adams and the Congress of 1798 did.
So I'd suggest between some internet "expert" and the people who actually wrote The Constitution? I'll go with The Founders.
LOL, it would if you had any familiarity with the subject at all . Try googling the history of the Public Heralth Service, or President John Adams for that matter. Second president of the United States? One of The Founders conservatives often swoon over? Signer of legislation establishing a mandatory federal fee collected for the building, manning and running of a federal healthcare system?
You are referring to a service provided solely to the Marines? Um... yeah. That's not remotely the same thing.
"There is no constitutional allowance for Federal intrusion on state matters regarding a healthcare marketplace." and yet that is precisely what President John Adams and the Congress of 1798 did.
So I'd suggest between some internet "expert" and the people who actually wrote The Constitution? I'll go with The Founders.
Again, not even close to what has happened with the ACA. A military hospital or system that serves only the military is not the same as Federal collusion with private insurance companies in a combined effort to interfere with and control health care and to force American citizens to participate. It's Soviet-era central planning at its worst... now in America!
Health care marketplaces may be established and run (even though I consider it a dumb idea) at the state level, not the Federal. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Constitution would acknowledge that this entire mess has been a power grab by Washington and connected special interests.
I presume that should Rand Paul be elected, he'll actively work with the Republican Congress to dismantle this. Other candidates, I'm not so sure. As a Libertarian, I'm extremely concerned about the growth and reach of government, in any part of the political spectrum, into our individual lives.
Oh, please. Only the willfully ignorant do not know that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who developed Romneycare, received nearly $400,000 in consultants fees to help President Obama develop Obamacare. According to Gruber, Romneycare and Obamacare are "basically...the same thing." The major difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is the source of funds used to ensure each program's financial viability. Your state-run Romneycare is subsidized using Federal funds--Medicaid, IIRC. Whether you live in Massachusetts, Mississippi, Kansas, or Montana, you are paying for Romneycare.
You may find much of this information in the 2011 Forbes Magazine report by Forbes staff reporter Avik Roy. If you want additional information about Obamacare, Romneycare, or any other healthcare plan, then it is just a Google search away.