Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to mandate you to buy a product?

As I said, its big govt...but not unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives the legislature right to make laws that govern the country and effect its citizens. So it allows for open ended laws.

So where does it say that those laws cannot be mandates?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

As I said, its big govt...but not unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives the legislature right to make laws that govern the country and effect its citizens. So it allows for open ended laws.

So where does it say that those laws cannot be mandates?

So, under your crazy interpretation of the Constitution, is there a single thing the government can't do? After all, the legislature has the right to make laws, right?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

As I said, its big govt...but not unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives the legislature right to make laws that govern the country and effect its citizens. So it allows for open ended laws.

So where does it say that those laws cannot be mandates?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Anything not specifically delegated to Congress is outside their jurisdiction, not the other way around.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

As I said, its big govt...but not unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives the legislature right to make laws that govern the country and effect its citizens. So it allows for open ended laws.

So where does it say that those laws cannot be mandates?

I weep for our educational system

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So, under your crazy interpretation of the Constitution, is there a single thing the government can't do? After all, the legislature has the right to make laws, right?

The Constitution doesn't give every little detail of what government can do. It simply gives Congress the right to make laws...Congress is held responsible by voters. This is 101 level stuff.

Again, where does the Constitution dictate the nature of laws that can be passed?

I weep for our educational system

Do you have anything facts to back you up?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Anything not specifically delegated to Congress is outside their jurisdiction, not the other way around.

The Constitution gives the rights of Congress to make laws. Voters may vote Congress out...and repeal the law. But Congress is making a law.

How is that unconstitutional?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Anything not specifically delegated to Congress or implicitly necessary to achieve their purposes is outside their jurisdiction, not the other way around.

FYP.

[A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so ... is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality....

-- Alexander Hamilton, 1791. (Source)

This is a Constitutional issue that has been fought, negotiated, refought and renegotiated throughout our history. It's as muddy as every other Constitutional provision. The logical and historical error of the strict constructionist, whether an honest mistake or simply a ruse to smash through his policy preferences, is to masquerade the socially-constructed as an invariant law with only one (inevitably, his) interpretation. That would be easy, but it aint how things are in the real world, thank god.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to mandate you to buy a product?

The 1st amendment requires the purchase of ****ty political ads every election cycle.
The 2nd amendment requires us all to buy guns.
The 4th amendment requires us to buy illegal drugs and plant them on the people we want thrown in jail.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The Constitution gives the rights of Congress to make laws. Voters may vote Congress out...and repeal the law. But Congress is making a law.

How is that unconstitutional?

Why have a court system at all then? Voters can just vote people out, right?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The Constitution doesn't give every little detail of what government can do.

Actually, it does

Do you have anything facts to back you up?

Do you? For something to be constitutional is has to be expressly laid out in the constitution. The constitution is an assembly of negative rights for gov't. It says that the gov't can't do anything that isn't expressly laid out inside the document. That is why there was hesitation to include the Bill of Rights. Its redundent. The gov't already couldn't do those things.

I'll go ahead and repeat the earlier question. Given your view, is there anything that gov't can't do? I mean, if they can mandate you purchase health insurance why can't they force you to buy a car from GM?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Why have a court system at all then? Voters can just vote people out

Samuel Alito posts here?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The 2nd amendment requires us all to buy guns.

If only...

Rep. Hal Wick wanted to get people’s attention.

He succeeded.

Wick, a Sioux Falls Republican, attracted a national media circus after introducing a striking bill Monday: a mandate that every South Dakotan purchase a gun...

The bill, HB 1237, requires every South Dakota citizen at least 21 years old to “purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense” within six months of turning 21. It has an exception for people forbidden by law from owning firearms.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Why have a court system at all then? Voters can just vote people out, right?

What?

I only addressed one case...which believed a specific law was unconstitutional. I said nothing about the court system.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

What?

I only addressed one case...which believed a specific law was unconstitutional. I said nothing about the court system.

Right, but your logic was this:

The Constitution gives the rights of Congress to make laws. Voters may vote Congress out...and repeal the law. But Congress is making a law.

How is that unconstitutional?

So, every case that comes before a court should be able to use the logic of, "Hey, we have the power to make laws. And we made a law. Case closed."

Or not?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Right, but your logic was this:


So, every case that comes before a court should be able to use the logic of, "Hey, we have the power to make laws. And we made a law. Case closed."

Or not?

OK...ya, assuming it doesn't actually violate what the Constitution does say. The only thing you can go by...is what the Constitution says and it says legislature can make laws.

On the other hand, allowing a judge say that he believes that laws should be allowed or not allowed based on his own opinion(regardless if whether its specifically addressed by the Constitution) suddenly makes the political stance of the judge very important and Constution not very important in my book.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I love the judiciary. Throw out partial birth abortion bans as unconstitutional and p*ss off the right. Then throw out the healthcare reform law and p*ss off the left. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was a conspiracy to give all the ideologues aneurysms.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Actually, it does

Do you? For something to be constitutional is has to be expressly laid out in the constitution. The constitution is an assembly of negative rights for gov't. It says that the gov't can't do anything that isn't expressly laid out inside the document. That is why there was hesitation to include the Bill of Rights. Its redundent. The gov't already couldn't do those things.

I'll go ahead and repeat the earlier question. Given your view, is there anything that gov't can't do? I mean, if they can mandate you purchase health insurance why can't they force you to buy a car from GM?

Govt abuse was the concern of Jefferson and others...that's why he rightfully put in the bill of rights and gave him concern for the welfare of the people against the government.

Protection of the people against the govt is policed by US citizens primarily by voting or as Jefferson felt, revolution. But this concern is NOT address by the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Beyond the bill of rights or other specifically worded topical areas, there are no limitations to laws...in the Constitution.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So, under your crazy interpretation of the Constitution, is there a single thing the government can't do?

Blame FDR...it's been that way for 80 years now.

The mechanism selected's an admittedly poor one. They should've just added a couple lines onto the income tax form instead, but whatever.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The Constitution doesn't give every little detail of what government can do. It simply gives Congress the right to make laws...Congress is held responsible by voters. This is 101 level stuff.

Again, where does the Constitution dictate the nature of laws that can be passed?



Do you have anything facts to back you up?



The Constitution gives the rights of Congress to make laws. Voters may vote Congress out...and repeal the law. But Congress is making a law.

How is that unconstitutional?

Talk about using a bludgeon when a scalpel is called for...Congress can't just make any law - they have been struck down before and will be again.

Now, try again, because ultimately you're (probably) right, but are way wrong on the reasons why.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Blame FDR...it's been that way for 80 years now.

191 years. McCulloch v. Maryland was 1819. FWIW, according to some people we've been a federal "tyranny" since at least President Monroe.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

191 years. McCulloch v. Maryland was 1819. FWIW, according to some people we've been a federal "tyranny" since at least President Monroe.

Sweet, I learned something today. And reading that decision I think you're correct.