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

[low preference guy]

^ The courts don't think so. The whole validity of the health care mandate will be argued in court with the Commerce Clause.

In other words, sure, I have my opinions, but in court they will talk about the commerce clause to decide on the legality of the health care mandate. So I just argue for the interpretation of the Commerce Clause I think is correct and that will invalidate the health care mandate.

 

[Travlyr]

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?"

No it's not. Universal health care goes against the intent of the U.S. Constitution because it is theft.

The intent of the U.S. Constitution was to establish a republic form of government that would protect individual unalienable rights.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Sorry...the courts don't think what? I don't know what you're referring to here.

 

[werealldoodshey]

No it's not. Universal health care goes against the intent of the U.S. Constitution because it is theft.

The intent of the U.S. Constitution was to establish a republic form of government that would protect individual unalienable rights.

Are you an actual person or are you just a word generator that talks in libertarian cliches?

 

[low preference guy]

The courts think that Commerce Clause has to do with pot (Gonzalez vs. Raich). The democrats use that precedent and justify the health care mandate using the Commerce Clause. When they defend the health care mandate, they will argue using the Commerce Clause.

In other words, sure, I have my opinions, but in court they will talk about the commerce clause to decide on the legality of the health care mandate. So I just argue for the interpretation of the Commerce Clause I think is correct and that will invalidate the health care mandate. Considering what they did in Gonzalez vs. Raich, it won't surprise me if Obama wins the case.

 

[Travlyr]

Are you an actual person or are you just a word generator that talks in libertarian cliches?

Of course I'm a person. Protecting those individual rights are the only reason to form a government.

Do you know what an unalienable right is?

 

[Travlyr]

I have not heard a well thought-out argument for this yet. I was hoping that the Ron Paul folks, who tend to be the smartest conservatives out there, had to say. Do you think health care reform is unconstitutional (specifically, the insurance mandate)? How? Why? What constitutional provision?

You come into this forum wanting to argue the constitutionality of health care reform without even knowing the purpose of government.

Learn

 

[werealldoodshey]

When did the democrats say that the relationship between the commerce clause and pot applies to Health Reform? Cite/quote?

Anyway, you're not arguing with the democrats; you're arguing with me.

I must stress once again: The legal argument I make uses the 6th Article of the Constitution, not Article I.

There's no Commerce Clause "interpretation" to even talk about here. This is a matter of text, not of your personal opinion. The Commerce Clause says that Congress may regulate commerce between states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes. I take this to mean that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes. Do you disagree?

I'll take it for granted you agree, since it's a tautology and therefore self-proven. So, then, would you say that business between individuals and their health insurers is interstate commerce? I say it is, particularly when the individual is in one state and the company is headquartered in another. I'm really curious to see what your response to this is.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Dude, how old are you? You seem like a very silly person.

 

[werealldoodshey]

It's actually "inalienable"; "unalienable" is generally attributed to a typesetter's error. It's a word that exists far beyond the one or two texts you know.

It means, severally, unalterable, immutable, un-abolishable (is that a word?), incapable of being done without, sublime, eternal, everlasting, self-fulfilling, &c. Is that a satisfactory definition, Mr. Wester?

 

[low preference guy]

Sure, I can argue based on your other interpretation, but that's argument is sort of irrelevant I guess, because it's not going to be used in court. The dems will use the pot case because the precedent is in their favor. I don't have the source right now, but Nancy Pelosi argued for the Constitutionality of health care reform using the commerce clause.

If you google "health care" "commerce clause" you'll see that all the legal debate so far pretty much amounts to a debate on the commerce clause.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Yes, I KNOW that Pelosi says that the bill conforms with the Commerce Clause; that has nothing to do with the Dems saying that the marijuana case is precedent.

I KNOW that the legal debate on health care centers on the commerce clause. I never argued to the contrary. I only said that I have very little faith in your assertion that the Dems are using the pot case as precedent. You have offered no refutation.

 

[Travlyr]

It's actually "inalienable"; "unalienable" is generally attributed to a typesetter's error. It's a word that exists far beyond the one or two texts you know.

It means, severally, unalterable, immutable, un-abolishable (is that a word?), incapable of being done without, sublime, eternal, everlasting, self-fulfilling, &c. Is that a satisfactory definition, Mr. Wester?

Not far off Mr. werealldoodshey....

Unfortunately, you miss the fundamentals. You are not seeing the forest for trees. You can argue about the court decisions all you want, but it's not relevant.
Health care does not meet the test of constitutionality because the intent of the U.S. Constitution was to protect individual unalienable rights and it is the only proper function of government. Health care is property theft. And it is very stupid.

1. Unalienable rights cannot be made, altered or abolished by government or mankind.
2. As its proper role, government is instituted by mankind exclusively to protect unalienable rights.

 

[low preference guy]

There is no "source" because the case will not take place in many years, so I don't know have access to the writings of the lawyers. But it's what is assumed in most discussions, even those of legal scholars.

The point is that if someone is going to use the Commerce Clause, they will probably use the precedent with most expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That precedent is Gonzalez vs. Raich.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Oh my God...your historicity is fucking laughable! "1. Unalienable [sic] rights cannot be made, altered or abolished by government or mankind." Your conflation of phrases is really cartoonish. We all know that the phrase "altered or abolished" is in the Declaration of Independence (well...perhaps I should ask whether YOU knew that) and that it has nothing to do with inalienable rights in that text. Am I arguing with Groucho Marx? Is this a joke?

 

[werealldoodshey]

"The dems will use the pot case because the precedent is in their favor."

You said that. What is your source?

 

[low preference guy]

No source, I assume. If someone is going to use the Commerce Clause, they will probably use the precedent with most expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That precedent is Gonzalez vs. Raich.

It's not like it compromises them politically. It's what the court said and they can stop the prosecution of medical marijuana patients by simply not making an enforcement priority.

 

[Travlyr]

Oh my God...your historicity is fucking laughable! "1. Unalienable [sic] rights cannot be made, altered or abolished by government or mankind." Your conflation of phrases is really cartoonish. We all know that the phrase "altered or abolished" is in the Declaration of Independence (well...perhaps I should ask whether YOU knew that) and that it has nothing to do with inalienable rights in that text. Am I arguing with Groucho Marx? Is this a joke?

That's funny. You are arguing Democrats vs. Republicans... Yeah!

Your ignorance is amazing.

 

[werealldoodshey]

Okay, so then we will have to see what cases the defendants choose to use as precedent. Talking about it now is mere conjecture.

 

[werealldoodshey]

what? I am arguing "Democrats vs. Republicans"? What does that even mean? Is English your first language?