SD bill to require all over 21 to purchase a gun

Good Luck said:
Like I asked before, name the Constitutional right which is violated. It is easy to challenge the federal government imposing mandates (which is the case you referenced) because federal power is limited to those powers enumerated. Mandating the purchase of any goods or services is not an enumerated power, and is therefore unconstitutional at the FEDERAL level. OTOH, the 10th Amendment says that those powers not reserved to the feds, and not forbidden to the states, is reserved to the states. Therefore, mandating the purchase of goods or services IS a power of the states, since it is neither enumerated to the feds nor forbidden the states.

UNLESS, of course, there is a violation of enumerated rights, or non-enumerated rights, assuming SCOTUS can be convinced that protection against such mandates is a non-enumerated right protected under the 9th Amendment.

As such, which right are you claiming is violated by state government mandating the purchase of specific goods or services?
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to look it up.....the one the federal judge recently relied on in throwing out Obamacare.....
 
All have the right to be armed.

What's wrong with making it a requirement?

Look at all the great things we Americans accomplish with guns!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm too lazy to look it up.....the one the federal judge recently relied on in throwing out Obamacare.....
Click to expand...
The one the federal judge relied on in throwing out the mandate provision of Obamacare has nothing to do with our rights. It has to do with the fact that mandating purchase of anything is not an enumerated power of the federal government.

Frankly, I cannot think of any enumerated right which would prevent the states from mandating the purchase of insurance (or guns). If you can, I would like to hear which one you are basing your "unconstitutional" claims. As I state in an earlier post, it will most likely take convincing the courts that the people have the non-enumerated right against government encroachment on individual purchase decisions.

So far you tried to incorporate the ruling against the federal government, which does not work because the U.S. Constitution does not limit state governments to anywhere near the degree it limits federal government. In fact, that difference was VERY deliberate on the part of the founders. With the exception of prohibitions which would conflict with federal powers listed in Article I, sections 9 and 10, plus certain limitations in Article IV against powers with the potential to conflict with other states, they placed no restrictions on state governments in the U.S. Constitution, leaving those limitations to be decided by the people of each state individually in their own constitutions.

This is why it took the 14th Amendment to incorporate the B.O.R. to the states. Before the 14th Amendment, a state could, constitutionally, limit free speech, establish a state church, confiscate firearms, quarter their militia, etc. etc. etc. As such, it is no coincidence that most state constitutions incorporated their own bills of rights, being the same people who wrote the federal constitution were also involved with developing the constitutions of their respective states.
 
Good Luck said:
The discussion is on the U.S. Constitution, and whether the same limits the courts are using to declare federal mandates unconstitutional also applies to the states. It has nothing to do with the various state constitutions.
Click to expand...

Actually, post 1: "...Bill Introduced in South Dakota..."

And Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:

"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."
 
Since liberals always conflate federal power with state power, they will be looking at SD as if the USC were directly involved. I think that is a point SD is making here, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top