• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Discussion: Health And Healthcare II

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is legal. It is a part of the original intention of the Constitution.

The Federal Government would resist, but it is legal.

So why hasn't it happened since the Civil War? The power to declare Federal laws unconstitutional lie within the judicial branch of government, not with the states. I know of only one case were a State was successful in nullifying a federal law and that was only because the Federal government chose not to enforce it nor punish the state for its actions.
 
So why hasn't it happened since the Civil War? The power to declare Federal laws unconstitutional lie within the judicial branch of government, not with the states. I know of only one case were a State was successful in nullifying a federal law and that was only because the Federal government chose not to enforce it nor punish the state for its actions.

Wrong. If you actually look at the constitutional debate you would have seen that the Founders would have never allowed the Federal Government to be the only opinion in interpreting the Constitution.

As far as why it hasn't been done since the Civil War (though measures like medical marijuana obviously represent State practices that nullify Federal law), it is a product of the state of politicians and their knowledge of the Constitution - not a lack of authority.
 
Wrong. If you actually look at the constitutional debate you would have seen that the Founders would have never allowed the Federal Government to be the only opinion in interpreting the Constitution.

As far as why it hasn't been done since the Civil War (though measures like medical marijuana obviously represent State practices that nullify Federal law), it is a product of the state of politicians and their knowledge of the Constitution - not a lack of authority.


How then do you handle a case where one state's courts come to one conclusion and another state's courts come to an opposing ruling?
 
One state court works for one state, the other state court works for the other state.

On a Constitutional matter like this, the obvious measure of last resort would be to pass a Constitutional amendment making clear the question of conflict. That would require a majority of the States to sign off and a change in the Constitutional contract to be made explicit.

The Federal Governments opinion of the Constitution is, however, not supperior to the opinion of the States. That is quite obvious in the document and the intention with which it was created. Afterall, the Constitution was created and ratified by the States, not the Federal Government.
 
Last edited:
So basically the federal government is completely irrelevent in the end?
 
No. It is has powers EXPLICITLY listed in the Constitution.

Those powers are:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If the Federal Government wants more power, it needs to make an explicit request from the states (again, in the form of amendment). And it is the responsibility of the states to man up and restrain the government to those powers. It has failed at that job since the Civil War. Which is understandable, but not justification to declaw it from righting that wrong now.
 
The Constitution is a wonderfully simple document. It is only when you throw logic and intent out the window, and start making idiotic arguments like "well intrastate commerce may affect interstate commerce so the Constitution gives Congress the power for regualte innerstate decisions" that it gets confusing.
 
Wrong. If you actually look at the constitutional debate you would have seen that the Founders would have never allowed the Federal Government to be the only opinion in interpreting the Constitution.

As far as why it hasn't been done since the Civil War (though measures like medical marijuana obviously represent State practices that nullify Federal law), it is a product of the state of politicians and their knowledge of the Constitution - not a lack of authority.

If you actually look at the constitution, it says that the members of the (several) State Legislatures, (and) all executive and judicial officers of both the States and the Federal government are bound by oath or affirmation to support the constitution and the Constitutions says that it and all Federal Laws and treaties are supreme law of the land. It would seem to me that any attempt at interposition or nullification would be treasonous. The Constitution does not grant the states that power nor has it ever.
 
The Constitution is a wonderfully simple document. It is only when you throw logic and intent out the window, and start making idiotic arguments like "well intrastate commerce may affect interstate commerce so the Constitution gives Congress the power for regualte innerstate decisions" that it gets confusing.

It was never the intent to allow the States to have the power to nullify any Federal laws. If that were so they would not have written the Supremacy Clause.
 
If you actually look at the constitution, it says that the members of the (several) State Legislatures, (and) all executive and judicial officers of both the States and the Federal government are bound by oath or affirmation to support the constitution and the Constitutions says that it and all Federal Laws and treaties are supreme law of the land. It would seem to me that any attempt at interposition or nullification would be treasonous. The Constitution does not grant the states that power nor has it ever.

The Constitution says that all Federal Laws in pursuance of the Constitution are law of the land. The position of the State would be that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. If the Florida Supreme court agreed, then the State would have a responsibilty to nullify the law.

It was never the intent to allow the States to have the power to nullify any Federal laws. If that were so they would not have written the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause does not give the Federal authority to overextend its Constitutional powers, nor granted the Federal government the ability to decide for itself what those powers are.
 
The Constitution says that all Federal Laws in pursuance of the Constitution are law of the land. The position of the State would be that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. If the Florida Supreme court agreed, then the State would have a responsibility to nullify the law.

The Constitution does not say that. It says that the document itself, all Federal laws, and any treaties (held between the U.S. and a foreign nation) are supreme law of the land. Any Federal laws in pursuance to the Constitution (that would presumably be those of the Articles of Confederation or maybe even the Mayflower Compact) are null and void. Now, as far as each State goes, their laws would apply within their State, but if it comes in conflict with any Federal laws, treaties, or the Constitution itself, they would be superseded by the latter legislation.

The Supremacy Clause does not give the Federal authority to overextend its Constitutional powers, nor granted the Federal government the ability to decide for itself what those powers are.

If the laws are considered constitutional by a judge, yes, they can.
 
The Constitution does not say that. It says that the document itself, all Federal laws, and any treaties (held between the U.S. and a foreign nation) are supreme law of the land. Any Federal laws in pursuance to the Constitution (that would presumably be those of the Articles of Confederation or maybe even the Mayflower Compact) are null and void. Now, as far as each State goes, their laws would apply within their State, but if it comes in conflict with any Federal laws, treaties, or the Constitution itself, they would be superseded by the latter legislation.

All Federal laws that are within the boundaries of the Constitution. The Federal Government can't do whatever it wants. Its jurisdiction is limited.

If the laws are considered constitutional by a judge, yes, they can.

And if the Florida Supreme Court says Healthcare is Unconstitutional, then that is okay for the Florida legislature to nullify the law.
 
Once more the government meddling where they should'nt be.
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-out-parents-the-state-may-want-to-take-away-your-obese-kids/

I am outraged beyond words. Man the proxies, get yer goatses and yer gore. This could surely lead to e-war!:cmad:

Disgusting. If their so worried about peoples health why don't they find and release a cure for cancer already. I'm getting sick of our own government instilling their prejudices on us. What happened to us all being equal? "Free Country" my as*.
 
Birth Control Coverage Proposed for Most Health Insurance Plans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...lans/2011/07/19/gIQAcqS7NI_story.html?hpid=z4

Virtually all health insurance plans could soon be required to offer female patients free coverage of prescription birth control, breast-pump rentals, counseling for domestic violence, and annual wellness exams and HIV tests as a result of recommendations released Tuesday by an independent advisory panel of health experts.
And it's free!! :awesome:

I'm sure the health insurance companies won't even think about raising premiums to cover the loss of money they would normally recoup through deductibles and co-pays, because there's no money involved--it's free!!
 
Yep, my premium goes up again....I can see it now.
 
So if that happens and we are all required to have health insurance...what would be the point of Planned Parenthood? (I am not against planned parenthood, it just goes to show you the idiocy of the DNC).
 
Health care law won’t rein in costs, study says
Despite President Obama’s promises to rein in health care costs as part of his reform bill, health spending nationwide is expected to rise more than if the sweeping legislation had never become law.

Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, according to a 10-year forecast by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released Thursday. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually.
The federal government is projected to spend 20 percent more on Medicaid, while spending on private health insurance is expected to rise by 9.4 percent.
 
I'm really thinking that this is going to get thrown out by the Supreme Court. And I think that it will happen before the 2012 election. I'd love to see Obama react on the campaign trail to that. The Obama Administration loves to point out how they won in some court cases, but those were completely frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits. They have lost every time so far when they have gone up against the states.
 
Last edited:
I'm really thinking that this is going to get thrown out by the Supreme Court. And I think that it will happen before the 2012 election. I'd love to see Obama react on the campaign trail to that. The Obama Administration loves to point out how they won in some court cases, but those were completely frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits. They have lost every time so far when they have gone up against the states.

It will be interesting to watch, that is for sure...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"