Comments
1 - 20 of 80 Comments Last updated Feb 4, 2011
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Tim John

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 31, 2011
 
Another federal judge says that the health care bill is unconstitutional because it requires that all American citizens purchase health care insurance by 2014. His basic argument is that by mandating citizens to have to purchase health care that the government is usurping the Constitution, where as auto insurance is not a federal mandate and is only attached to states' laws, nor do Americans have to have cars and or drive. I guess the very same two-faced thinking is attached to mandated insurances on home purchases and other 'mandated insurances'.

...the first premise is that because the federal government is doing the mandating and not the states, that usurps the Constitution, and not states laws that do the very same thing. As if states are above the Constitution but the federal government is not.

...and the second premise is convenience, that if citizen choose to drive they should have mandated insurances, if they choose to buy a house, or a business, or drive a motorcycle, or so forth... that require by laws, a mandated insurance... that this somehow does not disturb the Constitution...these are all commodities that are attached to huge swaths of America commerce and American functionality; however, the idea is that we do not have to have them.

Last premise, is that the government,(...the Congress and President Obama are attempting to, through the new health care bill...are attempting to 'charge' people to live.)



“It still reeks in here.”

Since: Jan 11

Must be Spike.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Tim John wrote:
Another federal judge says that the health care bill is unconstitutional because it requires that all American citizens purchase health care insurance by 2014. His basic argument is that by mandating citizens to have to purchase health care that the government is usurping the Constitution, where as auto insurance is not a federal mandate and is only attached to states' laws, nor do Americans have to have cars and or drive. I guess the very same two-faced thinking is attached to mandated insurances on home purchases and other 'mandated insurances'.
...the first premise is that because the federal government is doing the mandating and not the states, that usurps the Constitution, and not states laws that do the very same thing. As if states are above the Constitution but the federal government is not.
...and the second premise is convenience, that if citizen choose to drive they should have mandated insurances, if they choose to buy a house, or a business, or drive a motorcycle, or so forth... that require by laws, a mandated insurance... that this somehow does not disturb the Constitution...these are all commodities that are attached to huge swaths of America commerce and American functionality; however, the idea is that we do not have to have them.
Last premise, is that the government,(...the Congress and President Obama are attempting to, through the new health care bill...are attempting to 'charge' people to live.)
Car insurance, in addition to being STATE mandated, is a requirement on a privilege (driving). The Barrycare mandate is a require on living.

The requirement of home insurance is usually insurance on the loan. Once the loan is paid off, most states don't mandate you have to keep the insurance.

The Barrycare mandate is unlike any federal requirement ever imposed before. It's not comparable to either car insurance or mortgage insurance. Federal judges will continue to find it unconstitutional because it is, and because Pelosi and her merry band of idiots were too short sighted to include a severability clause, the entire bill will fall when the mandate does.

“see where the hands are?”

Since: Sep 10

Bigot, Haiti

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Taxi and bus patrons don't need insurace.

Renters aren't required to have insurance.

No company will even write a policy for mobile homes over 10 years old.

Your flimsy debate tactics still fail, Timmy.

What kind of moron supports fines for people who can't afford insurance, Timmy?
Why not take the fine money and cover them with insurance?

HR3200 is unconstitutional, and Obama deserves to be impeached for imposing it. He also deserves to be publicly ridiculed for failing to live up to "5 days on the internet before I sign any non emergency bill into law".
The 2014 deadline means there's no way to invoke his built-in loophole to break his empty promises.
Tim John

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Can a state law bypass the Constitution, while a federal law is blocked by the Constitution?

How is any convenience based on a mandated insurance, considered less of a usurpation of the Constitution, if any mandated insurance is deemed unconstitutional?

Are federal income taxes a forced 'federally' mandated law...that charges Americans for earning a income?..If so than how is it not unconstitutional... is the answer that 'employment' and or business, or however Americans earn a living a 'convenience'?

..in a capitalist society, can a earned-income ever be concerned a convenience?

If the answer is of course no, than are federal income taxes unconstitutional because it is understood that Americans must have an income in order to live, thereby federal income taxes rise to the same threshold as the new health care bill?


Maverick

Elgin, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

IMO it's unconstitutional.
Tim John

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 31, 2011
 
How does the Constitution, come alive to defend against one federally mandated law that taxes Americans right to live and leaves federal incomes taxes along?

Are states usurping the Constitution, by allowing water companies to charge citizens to drink water out of their kitchen sinks... which is a tax or mandated charge against Americans right to live?

Can it be considered a 'convenience' to be able to drink water (...the most essential element of human life), from ones own residence as oppose to going down to the local stream, river, or lake ..and or so forth to get a glass of water?

Tim John

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 31, 2011
 
...Food... food is an essential element of human life. Are grocery stores usurping the Constitution by mandating charges to purchase foods in which every American needs to live?

...or is prepared foods a 'convenience'?

If the answer is yes, that driving, eating, and drinking water are all conveniences, and everything else that we are mandated to purchase is a convenience ...than so is health care ..and we need health care the same as the aforementioned in order to live.

While it is true that driving could be considered a convenience... over 98% of Americans are born in hospitals...which means from birth...health care was needed to get them started out in life!

“see where the hands are?”

Since: Sep 10

Bigot, Haiti

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tim John wrote:
Can a state law bypass the Constitution, while a federal law is blocked by the Constitution?
How is any convenience based on a mandated insurance, considered less of a usurpation of the Constitution, if any mandated insurance is deemed unconstitutional?
Are federal income taxes a forced 'federally' mandated law...that charges Americans for earning a income?..If so than how is it not unconstitutional... is the answer that 'employment' and or business, or however Americans earn a living a 'convenience'?
..in a capitalist society, can a earned-income ever be concerned a convenience?
If the answer is of course no, than are federal income taxes unconstitutional because it is understood that Americans must have an income in order to live, thereby federal income taxes rise to the same threshold as the new health care bill?
Because, Timmy, driving isn't live breathing....you CAN survive without it. How dense are you? How many tiomes will you ask the same stupid question and get the same fkkn answer before it finally dawns on you that you're wrong?
States rewuiring car insurance don't "bypass" any federal law. And the constitution was written to limit federal authority. That's exactly the reason our traitor in cheif says it's "not a static document", that it can be re-interpreted to to adapt to "the times"....in other wrods, his anti-American agenda.
If you doubt he said these things, read the book titled "Audacity of Hope."
Or if that's too advanced for your obviously stunted intellect, here's the Cliff Notes...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/a_clea...

“see where the hands are?”

Since: Sep 10

Bigot, Haiti

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Tim John wrote:
...
. over 98% of Americans are born in hospitals...which means from birth...health care was needed to get them started out in life!
Can you post a link to your source?
(No, because your ass isn't a web site)

What percentage of people never see the inside of a health care facility again once they leave the place of their birth, Timmy?
Tim John

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I guess in an over-Capitalist society everything about human life should have some sort of charge and should be considered a 'convenience' since the Constitution has such a 'sometimey' application.

Since we pay to use the restroom in our own houses (...the water bill), and not at restaurants, I guess we are ALL usurping the freaking Constitution for not paying a fee to the restaurants for using their restrooms to take a dump... Hell I guess pretty soon, it will be "constitutional" to be charged at fee to use a restroom at a restaurant, as a 'convenience'...

Who knows... the application of the Constitution is so stupid anymore, even the Constitution itself would like to come alive and fly to Mars!


Tim John

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 31, 2011
 
Hell, that sounds like a business plan... I should setup a new mandated-insurance that charges Americans a fee to use restaurant restrooms and get it past through the state... because gee, public restrooms are a 'convenience' and are not needed to live... Heck under this premise I could slap a mandated-insurance at the state level on just about anything... well a 'walking-down' the sidewalk insurance...

Hell I need to get started before someone else steals my business plan!

I'm sure the Constitution won't mind, since it a state mandated insurance and is considered a convenience...

what a joke this country has become...wow!

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Terrell, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 31, 2011
 
The mere fact that you continuously compare the requirement in some states to carry auto insurance to the healthcare mandate tells us one thing.... you are just too stupid to get it.

“...and I'll axe you back.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tim John wrote:
How does the Constitution, come alive to defend against one federally mandated law that taxes Americans right to live and leaves federal incomes taxes along?
Are states usurping the Constitution, by allowing water companies to charge citizens to drink water out of their kitchen sinks... which is a tax or mandated charge against Americans right to live?
Can it be considered a 'convenience' to be able to drink water (...the most essential element of human life), from ones own residence as oppose to going down to the local stream, river, or lake ..and or so forth to get a glass of water?
smh

Put in a well, and you won't have to pay for the SERVICE of water being piped from a facility that PROVIDES water as a SERVICE.

The convenience of city water is paid for through your bills and your taxes. Don't want to pay? Put in a well and pay the electric company for the SERVICE of power delivered to your home. Or is electricity a right also?
Jermaine Malik Floyd

Acton, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 31, 2011
 
Tim John wrote:
Can a state law bypass the Constitution, while a federal law is blocked by the Constitution?
How is any convenience based on a mandated insurance, considered less of a usurpation of the Constitution, if any mandated insurance is deemed unconstitutional?
Are federal income taxes a forced 'federally' mandated law...that charges Americans for earning a income?..If so than how is it not unconstitutional... is the answer that 'employment' and or business, or however Americans earn a living a 'convenience'?
..in a capitalist society, can a earned-income ever be concerned a convenience?
If the answer is of course no, than are federal income taxes unconstitutional because it is understood that Americans must have an income in order to live, thereby federal income taxes rise to the same threshold as the new health care bill?
NO - a state law cannot conflict with the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment gives states the authority to pass laws that the Constitution has not addressed or laws adhering to the principles within the Constitution.

What is unique about the Democratic Care Package is it mandates everyone to purchase something. I think the motivation is the fact "baby boomers" are about to retire so the federal government needs more money. It has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with addressing the shortfalls within Social Security. Government cannot require its subjects to purchase something. It is setting a precedent that would lead to trouble.

The US Congress had to pass an amendment to authorized the income tax. As such, the Democratic Care Package should have went the same route. Democrats had a super majority and they could had been more transparent. Instead of using a commerce clause, they should had just passed an amendment.

Tim John, Sir, remember Washington cannot do anything moral. Please always ignore the moral argument and look at the dollars.@2012 is the first year "baby boomers" are eligible for retirements. America is in trouble - pensions have no been kept up. 401s - individuals have not saved enough. Chickens are coming home to roost. More so, the democrats had to know that the Supreme Court would overturn the legislation. The legislation was immediately challenged - it is just a matter of time. It was just a show.

America has biggest problems than its income tax. Taxes are a necessity. The entitlement mentality of the majority group and privileged business entities are destroying America. However, most Caucasian Americans believe it is the poor or particularly, Africans in America. Time will tell the truth.

Is Health Care Insurance Unconstitutional - some of the mandates are. It is just a matter of time before the Supreme Court makes the final decision.

“see where the hands are?”

Since: Sep 10

Bigot, Haiti

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 31, 2011
 
Tim John wrote:

what a joke this country has become...wow!
That's ok because next year we're gonna change it BACK, and it won't be this joke it's become anymore.

“...and I'll axe you back.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 31, 2011
 
Jermaine Malik Floyd wrote:
<quoted text>NO - a state law cannot conflict with the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment gives states the authority to pass laws that the Constitution has not addressed or laws adhering to the principles within the Constitution.
What is unique about the Democratic Care Package is it mandates everyone to purchase something. I think the motivation is the fact "baby boomers" are about to retire so the federal government needs more money. It has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with addressing the shortfalls within Social Security. Government cannot require its subjects to purchase something. It is setting a precedent that would lead to trouble.
The US Congress had to pass an amendment to authorized the income tax. As such, the Democratic Care Package should have went the same route. Democrats had a super majority and they could had been more transparent. Instead of using a commerce clause, they should had just passed an amendment.
Tim John, Sir, remember Washington cannot do anything moral. Please always ignore the moral argument and look at the dollars.@2012 is the first year "baby boomers" are eligible for retirements. America is in trouble - pensions have no been kept up. 401s - individuals have not saved enough. Chickens are coming home to roost. More so, the democrats had to know that the Supreme Court would overturn the legislation. The legislation was immediately challenged - it is just a matter of time. It was just a show.
America has biggest problems than its income tax. Taxes are a necessity. The entitlement mentality of the majority group and privileged business entities are destroying America. However, most Caucasian Americans believe it is the poor or particularly, Africans in America. Time will tell the truth.
Is Health Care Insurance Unconstitutional - some of the mandates are. It is just a matter of time before the Supreme Court makes the final decision.
And why is Social Security insolvent? Why is America in trouble? I didn't ASK to have my wages garnished and applied to a cash pool so that politicians could raid it whenever they felt someone ELSE deserved my money. I would have been quite happy to have invested for my retirement myself.

These entitlements were, at their inception, liberal concepts. They have been abused by both parties. In the end, I lose because the government (of all people) thought they knew better how to plan for my retirement. That's panned out very well, don't you think? I don't understand how the left can view the abject failure of social entitlement programs that they conceived as proof that they deserve more control.
Barros Serrano

Socorro, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 31, 2011
 
Leave it to Yanks to be unable even to get healthcare together...

Every other developed country has managed this.

But then none of them are as dumbed-down as you stinking Yanks are.

LOL! Sometimes I think you deserve what you get, but then I live here too... damn!
Jermaine Malik Floyd

Waterford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 31, 2011
 
AxeMeAnythlng wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is Social Security insolvent? Why is America in trouble? I didn't ASK to have my wages garnished and applied to a cash pool so that politicians could raid it whenever they felt someone ELSE deserved my money. I would have been quite happy to have invested for my retirement myself.
These entitlements were, at their inception, liberal concepts. They have been abused by both parties. In the end, I lose because the government (of all people) thought they knew better how to plan for my retirement. That's panned out very well, don't you think? I don't understand how the left can view the abject failure of social entitlement programs that they conceived as proof that they deserve more control.
Regardless of who initated Social Security, both parties (as you also posted) are guilty of "[raiding] it whenever they felt someone ELSE [normally corporate entities] deserved [the people's] money." True liberalism revolves around ideas that constrait government - not expand government. Therefore, Roosevelt was no liberal; Roosevelt was a con artist. Social Security like all social programs from its onset was implemented for the economy; not individuals. In American politics liberalism is as vile as conservatism and conservatism is as vile as liberalism. The solution is not attacking the left. The solution is attacking a vile system but most Caucasian Americans and assimilating persons within my ethnicity can all see the value of pushing problems forward.

BTW, why do you constantly attack Africans in America? Are you just an igornant poster? Why not see the value of posting the truth and nothing but the truth?

“...and I'll axe you back.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 31, 2011
 
Jermaine Malik Floyd wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless of who initated Social Security, both parties (as you also posted) are guilty of "[raiding] it whenever they felt someone ELSE [normally corporate entities] deserved [the people's] money." True liberalism revolves around ideas that constrait government - not expand government. Therefore, Roosevelt was no liberal; Roosevelt was a con artist. Social Security like all social programs from its onset was implemented for the economy; not individuals. In American politics liberalism is as vile as conservatism and conservatism is as vile as liberalism. The solution is not attacking the left. The solution is attacking a vile system but most Caucasian Americans and assimilating persons within my ethnicity can all see the value of pushing problems forward.
BTW, why do you constantly attack Africans in America? Are you just an igornant poster? Why not see the value of posting the truth and nothing but the truth?
I just posted truth. I didn't requote something you said and interject my biases:[normally corporate entities][the people's].

I was talking about individualism, the cornerstone to libertarianism. You're the one who inferred racism. I said nothing about race. Or are you making a racial assumption because I said "the left." Last time I checked, the left is an infection whose majority is built on "Caucasian Americans."
Jermaine Malik Floyd

Waterford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 31, 2011
 
AxeMeAnythlng wrote:
<quoted text>
I just posted truth. I didn't requote something you said and interject my biases:[normally corporate entities][the people's].
I was talking about individualism, the cornerstone to libertarianism. You're the one who inferred racism. I said nothing about race. Or are you making a racial assumption because I said "the left." Last time I checked, the left is an infection whose majority is built on "Caucasian Americans."
No. I was NOT injecting racial comments into this post. I was talking about your comments in other forums. I knew when your spoke of "the left," you was not attacking Africans in Americe per se. Lastly, concerning ethnicity, I agreed with most of your comments.

Individualsim is a lie. People have been benefiting off of true affirmative action - good ole boy system - in America for years. A libertarian believes government should limit itself - "power concedes nothing without serious demands". That is not realistic. The more logical strategy would be to eliminate advantages this system gives to individuals or entities. As long as justice/government can see - justice is prevented.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••