Someone please explain to me how Health Care Reform violates the US Constitution.

[low preference guy]

Who, Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice?

If so, let me tell you something important: The Supreme Court Justice is the Supreme Court of the Land.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Of COURSE the FedGov is one of "limited and enumerated powers." No one would ever argue otherwise; I'd like you to show me one person who thinks that the federal government should have unlimited power.

 

[werealldoodshey]

nonono sorry, the guy from the video above. I know who Clarence Thomas is.

 

[werealldoodshey]

lol, I see you live in the Delta. That's a very progressive, open-minded area of the world you hail from.

 

[low preference guy]

//

 

[low preference guy]

The whole thing comes down to one single issue: The meaning of the Commerce Clause.

Clarence Thomas, former justices O'Connor and Rehnquist interpreted that clause more narrowly: All of them used it to defend California against the Feds.

The liberal Justices and traitor Scalia interpreted that clause more narrowly.

People in this forum mostly take that the Commerce Clause can regulate "buying and selling of goods across states lines", nothing more than that. That's why we consider the health care mandate unconstitutional.

When you're not buying health care, you're not buying or selling a good across states lines. When you're growing pot in your garden for personal consumption, you're not buying or selling goods across states lines, so these activities can't be regulated by the Commerce Clause.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Am I what you people consider a "troll"? Jesus fucking Christ, you guys are a bunch of whinging pussies. Would you prefer that I live you all so you can auto-flagellate with other free-thinking (yes, oddly, surprisingly like-minded) individuals?

 

[low preference guy]

Am I what you people consider a "troll"? Jesus fucking Christ, you guys are a bunch of whinging pussies. Would you prefer that I live you all so you can auto-flagellate with other free-thinking (yes, oddly, surprisingly like-minded) individuals?

If one guy said that it does not mean that all the people here think like that.

Also, the main purpose of this forum is not to discuss things we agree with each other. The main purpose is political activism. There a lot of grassroots projects that are organized here. This forum was very influential in helping Ron Paul achieve name recognition in '08, and is still influential in helping fund Rand Paul and other candidates.

 

[Travlyr]

Am I what you people consider a "troll"? Jesus fucking Christ, you guys are a bunch of whinging pussies. Would you prefer that I live you all so you can auto-flagellate with other free-thinking (yes, oddly, surprisingly like-minded) individuals?

Gezzz.. you are dumber than a box of rocks.

Answer this question if you can. What is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution?

 

[werealldoodshey]

Don't for an instant allow yourself to believe that i believe the Federal Law outlawing marijuana growth and distribution is a good one. But unfortunately, I have to agree with the justices who say that a state law legalizing marijuana is legal in any fashion MUST violate the federal law and, therefore, violates the "supreme Law of the Land." The Constitution is unambiguous on this point (you might even say it's rather specific!): "...the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (VI, clause 2).

I personally hope for the day where either the federal law is changed (which I doubt will happen) or a constitutional amendment to somehow exempt cannabis from Article VI. Until one of these happens, though, growing and selling pot is unambiguously a violation of federal law.

 

[low preference guy]

Don't for an instant allow yourself to believe that i believe the Federal Law outlawing marijuana growth and distribution is a good one. But unfortunately, I have to agree with the justices who say that a state law legalizing marijuana is legal in any fashion MUST violate the federal law and, therefore, violates the "supreme Law of the Land." The Constitution is unambiguous on this point (you might even say it's rather specific!): "...the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (VI, clause 2).

I personally hope for the day where either the federal law is changed (which I doubt will happen) or a constitutional amendment to somehow exempt cannabis from Article VI. Until one of these happens, though, growing and selling pot is unambiguously a violation of federal law.

Bullshit. There wouldn't be such dissent in the case if it was unambiguously clear.

Also, if the Congress decides to enact slavery, will the States be obliged to comply? Don't you know that the Supreme Court validated the Fugitive Slave Act, and states like Massachusetts didn't enforce the law because it was unconstitutional? That's what nullification and interposition is all about, and there is a growing movement arguing to use nullification again, this time against the health care monstrosity.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Gezzz.. you are dumber than a box of rocks.

Answer this question if you can. What is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution?

That is a fucking stupid question. Go away; I'm trying to have a conversation with low preference guy and anyone else who isn't trying to rely on a third grader's idea of rhetorical trap-doors.

The Constitution was written in order to be ratified by at least 9 states. Does that satisfy your inquisitive sense?

 

[werealldoodshey]

Bullshit. There wouldn't be such dissent in the case if it was unambiguously clear.

That's a slippery slope to walk down, low preference guy!

 

[Travlyr]

That is a fucking stupid question. Go away; I'm trying to have a conversation with low preference guy and anyone else who isn't trying to rely on a third grader's idea of rhetorical trap-doors.

The Constitution was written in order to be ratified by at least 9 states. Does that satisfy your inquisitive sense?

If it is such a stupid question, then why don't you know the answer?

 

[low preference guy]

You're right. Let me argue this other way: For me it was unambiguously clear that the Commerce Clause had no authority to intervene because there were no goods being sold or bought across state lines. The Supreme Court case against California was based on the opposite interpretation.

As I explained, there are two positions on the Commerce Clause, and I side with the first one. It's close to impossible to change someone's mind on that issue, because it leads to a long debate on methodology of interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[werealldoodshey]

But the justices don't ARGUE that it's regulated by the commerce clause! The law is simply made void on account to Article VI! I imagine that the disagreement on the bench must have stemmed from a disagreement about which constitutional provision to use as the primary lens through which to view the issue. I personally choose Article 6, since growing pot in your backyard so obviously is NOT covered in article I. Look at me, I'm arguing the 10th Amendment AND arguing for broad federal powers! It's almost as if the Founders thought the entire document was important, not just a convenient sample of cherry-picked provisions!

 

[werealldoodshey]

You're right. Let me argue this other way: For me it was unambiguously clear that the Commerce Clause had no authority to intervene because there were no goods being sold or bought across state lines. The Supreme Court case against California was based on the opposite interpretation.

As I explained, there are two positions on the Commerce Clause, and I side with the first one. It's close to impossible to change someone's mind on that issue, because it leads to a long debate on methodology of interpretation of the Constitution.

Dude, I really don't see what the California pot case has to do with the Commerce Clause. And yes, I do disagree with several justices who think that it does. Is it wrong to disagree with members of the bench? You certainly do.

 

[werealldoodshey]

If it is such a stupid question, then why don't you know the answer?

I do know the answer. I already gave it to you. Did you not read my response?

By the way, the question you gave me was what people who study rhetoric might call "open-ended," because there is no single answer to it. That's like asking, "What is rain like?"

 

[low preference guy]

If the Commerce Clause has nothing to do with you growing pot in your house, then the court case that allowed the Feds to send Californian pot growers to jail is invalid.

Therefore California would've won that case, and the Feds would have no authority to intervene. See Gonzales vs. Raich in Wikipedia (reason magazine also has great articles).

That's why the debate of whether or not you can legally grow pot in your own house for your own consumption is a debate about the commerce clause. The fact that pot growers were sent to jail using the Commerce Clause in that case will make it easier for Obama to argue that the commerce clause allows Congress to force people to buy health care. This is going one step further though, because it penalizes inactivity, while the pot case penalized activity. That's why the outcome of the case is open ended.

 

[werealldoodshey]

No no no.

Okay, point one: The case has nothing to do with the commerce clause. Commerce has to at least cross a state boundary in order to be affected by I.8.iii; I think we agree on this point, do we not?

So, you must then agree that the commerce clause has nothing to do with this case, yes? Therefore, any discussion of the commerce clause in the context of the California marijuana case is irrelevant?