Can You Answer These Constitutional Questions?

Classic Liberal said:
According to the Supreme Court, Obama-Care AKA the ACA is constitutional on the grounds that Congress has the power to tax. By that absurd notion the Congress has the power to do whatever the fuck it wants as long as Congress taxes the people for whatever the fuck Congress decides it wants to do. That friend is the absurd ideologically corrupted blabbering of the corrupt partisan bastards on the court.
Click to expand...


You need to re-read the Courts decision regarding the ACA, and not just skim the Fox News Talking Points version.

The Court determined that with regards to the claim that the portion of the ACA that mandates Insurance Coverage, the mandate was okay, because the only punishment was a tax, and the Government has the authority to tax. This decision was not based on some broad ruling that the entire ACA was valid due to it being a Tax.
 
You must remember, people, mostly in red states, hate Obamacare, but love the Affordable Care Act.

Bawahahahaha, that was just too damn funny!
 
What I find entertaining and enjoyable is that dislike for the ACA hit its peak last October, a year too early for the Republicans. If approval continues to rise like it has for the past few months, the Republicans wont have a talking point come November.
 
I can imagine a scenario where in some states Republicans who fought to keep their citizens uninsured will be running for the hills.
 
Jarod said:
I've answered that question. Its not in the Constitution. The Constitution outlines government interests and individual rights. Sometimes those two things conflict. Additionally sometimes rights conflict with other rights.
Click to expand...
the constitution does no such thing and there can be no conflict since the governments restrictions are CLEARLY laid out in it. give us an example of how rights conflict with other rights?

Jarod said:
How would you suggest we resolve the problem when citizens petition the Court to sort out whose right trumps the others, or when a citizen says his right was violated by a specific government interest?
Click to expand...
again, give examples of how you think rights conflict with other rights.
 
Jarod said:
You need to re-read the Courts decision regarding the ACA, and not just skim the Fox News Talking Points version.

The Court determined that with regards to the claim that the portion of the ACA that mandates Insurance Coverage, the mandate was okay, because the only punishment was a tax, and the Government has the authority to tax. This decision was not based on some broad ruling that the entire ACA was valid due to it being a Tax.
Click to expand...

Since you think you know so much about the court's decision will you tell the class if the court declared in its decision that the ACA is or isn't constitutional? If the court's decision was that the ACA is constitutional will you please tell the class by what article or amendment in the Constitution or by what other reason the court based that decision on?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the constitution does no such thing and there can be no conflict since the governments restrictions are CLEARLY laid out in it. give us an example of how rights conflict with other rights?

again, give examples of how you think rights conflict with other rights.
Click to expand...


Okay, I have a right to free exercise of my religion. The government has a duty to provide for the health and safety of its people.

If I claim my Religion prohibits me from giving my child a life saving medical treatment but the government wants to take the child and give it the treatment, who decides what to do?
 
Lets look at Brown v. Board of Education. The States right to order its social structure as it sees fit, v. Black Americans right to be provided equal protection under the law.
 
What if my community wants Public Schools they pay for to have instruction on the bible, and consider that a part of their right to exercise their religion but others claim that doing so violates the establishment clause....


Conflict!
 
Jarod said:
What if my community wants Public Schools they pay for to have instruction on the bible, and consider that a part of their right to exercise their religion but others claim that doing so violates the establishment clause....


Conflict!
Click to expand...


You just gave examples of historical precedent that puts the kibosh on the "interpretations" of our local right wing flunkies....now they'll just ignore that and repeat their folly in various forms.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
taichi already started his
Click to expand...


And neither YOU or your wanna-be lawyer buddy can logically or factually refute/disprove what I used to support my assertions...hell, YOU are so fucking stupid that I had to publicly embarrass you by educating you on aspects of this subject that any high school kid knows.

So all you've got left is a maudlin exchange with another defeated blowhard who can't offer nothing but sour grapes. Grow the hell up, STY....I'm embarrassed for you!
 
Jarod said:
If I claim my Religion prohibits me from giving my child a life saving medical treatment but the government wants to take the child and give it the treatment, who decides what to do?
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
Lets look at Brown v. Board of Education. The States right to order its social structure as it sees fit, v. Black Americans right to be provided equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins - Property rights v. Free Speech rights.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos - Equal Protection v. Free Exercise
Click to expand...

Taichiliberal said:
You just gave examples of historical precedent that puts the kibosh on the "interpretations" of our local right wing flunkies....now they'll just ignore that and repeat their folly in various forms.
Click to expand...

What kibosh, what interpretations? None of Jarod’s court cases have a dime’s worth of relevance to the original questions of this thread. Allow me to repeat the actual issue y’all lefties attempt to confuse so you can avoid actual rational answers to the actual original questions.

“If the “general welfare” clause of Article One, Section Eight of our Constitution validates as constitutional federal socialist programs, i. e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obama-Care, what actions/laws doesn’t the general welfare clause validate the Congress/federal government doing in the name of the general welfare?”

“If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution, why did the authors of the Constitution waste so much time, ink and paper to even bother writing the rest of the Constitution?”

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution why didn’t the authors simply end up with a single sentence Constitution that stated something like this,” “The Congress shall have all mighty power to make whatever laws they choose as long as they claim they are in the “general welfare” and the President signs them into law.”

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution, What’s with Amendment 10? What good is Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”??? What’s that all about anyhow???

“If the general welfare clause doesn't trump everything else in the Constitution, what doesn't it trump?”

Here’s the next question for y’all lefties.

Can you and will you explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, considering amendment 10 of our Constitution, how and by what constitutional directive the court came to the conclusion that Obama-Care/ACA is constitutional?
 
Jarod said:
Okay, I have a right to free exercise of my religion. The government has a duty to provide for the health and safety of its people.

If I claim my Religion prohibits me from giving my child a life saving medical treatment but the government wants to take the child and give it the treatment, who decides what to do?
Click to expand...

the government has no DUTY to provide for the health and safety of it's people. 1) WE are not the governments people, the government belongs to US. 2) read the numerous court decisions telling us that the government has no responsibility to provide protection to individuals (only society at large) and that they are NOT liable for failure to do so.

a majority of do gooders are going to tell the government to take your kid, that doesn't make it right or constitutional. the courts are going to side with the majority because they've been infused politically for decades now, so YOU are left with the decision of killing all that they send or submitting to unconstitutional power and authority.
 
Jarod said:
Lets look at Brown v. Board of Education. The States right to order its social structure as it sees fit, v. Black Americans right to be provided equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

14th Amendment resolved that. the states no longer have the right to order social structures based on color. there is NO conflict of rights here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top