US Supreme Court to here Obamas health care case

Some states have said this is not constitutional others have said yes it is Now the Supreme Court gets it's say, not till march will we the people know if it is or not, but then... I ask you as an ATS community , how would you rule yes it is, or no it is not.
Your only source is the bill of rights, as it should be, as far i can tell, after reading the bill of rights says yes it is ,there is no amendment prohibiting the US gov from forcing us the "we the people" to have it pay for it of pay a fine
www.cnn.com... and the bill of rights www.archives.gov...

They will "hear." Sorry to be the spelling police.

reply to post by bekod


My "rights" are not given by the Bill Of Rights or any other man made document. Rather they are bestowed upon all men by their creator. The Bill of Rights just outlines some basic ideals that cannot be infringed upon by government.

As to your question, no one can force me to buy something I do not want. Should the SCOTUS decide that the Health Care law is constitutional I will stop paying taxes rather than pay a fine.

You haven't looked deep enough.

Amendment X

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.

There's nothing in the Constitution addressing the federal government requiring people to participate in a federal program. This is a power " not delegated to the United States by the Constitution " and is, therefore, an authority retained by the states.

If your particular state wants to require it's citizens to have health insurance, that would have to be according to the state constitution. Since most state constitutions follow closely the federal constitution, it would most likely revert to the people deciding if they should have health insurance.

It is in violation of this amendment unless it is made optional. That's also why the Social Security program should be discontinued unless it is made optional.

If Kegan had any part in making Obomacare she shouldnt be allowed to hear the case. She would have a huge biased, I can't believe there's even a chance of her getting to hear this.

American is considered to have the most biased judges(any level) anyways. The reason is because before a judge is a judge they are a lawyer. Plaintiff laywers make judges who are biased of the plaintiff and vice versa. Other countries you go to school to be a judge, and you start as a junior judge.

In addition to both article 1, section 8 as well as the 10th amendment, I would like to remind the supreme court of their recent clarification of the 2nd as well as the current amount of privately owned firearms.

And to clarify the 10th, the federal government has no power not dictated to it by the constitution. All other powers are in the hands of the states OR the people. This means that powers and rights that are retained by the people trump the federal, state and even local governments unless that particular power is added to that level of government through the proper process.

For example a city government cannot restrict your gun ownership but can state that no firearms can be publicly displayed for fear of causing panic within the public. As maintaining the public peace is a power of a city government. Could be done on the state level as well. You can still own, just not open carry. But the federal government does not have that power spelled out therefore they would require an amendment to be passed in order to do so.

An event of national emergency or martial law, can abridge that limit but only for the duration of the crisis.

Sort of...

wow i thought there would be a lot of "the Gov will not force this on me " or "it is about time the poor pay there way". thanks for the reply's

reply to post by Ahabstar
yes but could this be a Clinton ploy "what is is?" could this not be taken as yes the Fed Government has "the power to do it"? just as laws are passed that we do not have a say in.

Originally posted by bekod
Some states have said this is not constitutional others have said yes it is Now the Supreme Court gets it's say, not till march will we the people know if it is or not, but then... I ask you as an ATS community , how would you rule yes it is, or no it is not.
Your only source is the bill of rights, as it should be, as far i can tell, after reading the bill of rights says yes it is ,there is no amendment prohibiting the US gov from forcing us the "we the people" to have it pay for it of pay a fine
www.cnn.com... and the bill of rights www.archives.gov...

edit on 14-11-2011 by bekod because: added link

I have to digress here. My only source is not the Bill of Rights -- Now, if you said the Constitution of the United States; then I would agree. Also, the United States Constitution is a limiting document that specifically enumerates what the Government can do.

I also suggest people refer to Federalist Papers for more meaning on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But given the current precedent that the Government holds on the Commerce clause -- this should be interesting to see if the Supreme Court reverts back to a more original intent of said clause.

FYI: The federal government was formed hundreds of years ago during a time when it took weeks, months, and even years to get information from point A (the people & foreign governments) to point B (Washington D.C.).

No, the existing laws are not required learning in schools, but compliance with the laws are mandatory. How many laws are there? I don't know. I've tried to google this question, but not even google knew the specific number of existing laws. So.... let's keep paying law makers to make more laws. Seems sane enough, and what harm can come of it? (some slight sarcasm there on my part).

Just some thoughts. ☮

reply to post by ILikeStars


To your heart's content and this is just Federal law -- U.S. Code
Add this to your list Code of Federal Regulations

This doesn't include any State laws that we must comply with either....I feel your pain ILikeStars...I feel your pain.

reply to post by ownbestenemy
oh thank you , it does help if you know where to look www.law.cornell.edu... from the link

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

for you like me, that do not know nor remember what this is. section 8

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

this does not mean that you , we the people must buy a FED GOV provided health care plan, if this be the case then we must by law go to Tribal casinos and gamble, must buy Canadian whiskey and or Mexico beer, and food

reply to post by ownbestenemy
thank you for this bit of info been looking in the wrong place, but it too is going by by in 2012 here is the new page www.gpo.gov...

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ILikeStars

 

To your heart's content and this is just Federal law -- U.S. Code
Add this to your list Code of Federal Regulations

This doesn't include any State laws that we must comply with either....I feel your pain ILikeStars...I feel your pain.

It does not tell me the number .... And I have to buy all the law code books, too?

Is there a country on this planet where existing laws are required learning in schools?

Debate the legalities all you want.

I'm not doing it.

Ever.

I'll pay the fines, fight the imposition.

But I just flat out, won't do it.

Originally posted by ILikeStars
t does not tell me the number

.... And I have to buy all the law code books, too?

Is there a country on this planet where existing laws are required learning in schools?

You don't have to buy anything...Look -- I despise the mountain of U.S. Code and Regulation that has been shoved down the throats of Americans -- but you are just nuts. I gave you the source for the identification of past transgressions.

with our budget in such a mess, all the unemployed, underemployed people, and the like...
well, obamacare isn't gonna work anyways, the gov't doesn't have the funds, the companies don't have the funds, the people don't have the funds.....
they might as well strike it down, and find a different approach to the problem....
how about we stop fighting proverty and begin a crusade to get the cost of living within the means of the majority of the working class???
the problem isn't that the people are too danged poor!!! the problem is that their rent is too danged high!!
same goes for every other necessity we have.....including healthcare....
for some of us, the healthcare system was more effective when the doctor was taking chickens for payment!

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

yes but could this be a Clinton ploy "what is is?" could this not be taken as yes the Fed Government has "the power to do it"? just as laws are passed that we do not have a say in.

It's not a matter of the law being passed - that has already been accomplished. the question now is the constitutionality of that law. Ahabstar is right on the money there. By the perverse "interpretation" of what the Constitution says that allowed this law to be passed in the first place, they can also force you to buy a new car every year, because GM is in trouble and the economy requires your purchase of that car.

The Constitution itself is pretty plain, and easily understood by the average eighth grader. It doesn't stand in need of "interpretation" which allowed this mess to be passed in the first place. The function of the Supreme Court is not to "interpret" the Constitution, but rather to apply what it says against laws that are passed in order to determine their Constitutionality, and hence their legality. If they live up to that standard, it will be stricken down.

if they do NOT live up to that standard, I personally have every intention of simply ignoring that law, as I do with all laws passed which are in contravention to already existing laws - especially those which violate a right.