Finally, a court that has not been intimidated by this administration.

The judge makes no difference.

The decision is what matters.

Leave it to Crabby Magoo to try to derail the thread by making it about the messenger instead of the message.

 

Do you believe his ruling will stand?

If so, why?

If not, why?

 

His ruling should stand.

It is not constitutional for the government to force all citizens to purchase a particular product on no other basis than a citizen is alive.

 

Where is the Constitution violated?

 

It violates contraints on the limits of the Federal government.

The Federal government does not have unlimited power.

The proper question then is - where does the Constitution grant the Federal government the power to require citizens to purchase health insurance?

 

I'm not sure it does. That's one reason I support single-payer healthcare; there is no doubt single payer would be constitutional.

 

Good luck getting single payer, Paul.

Since Obama spent his first two years pushing his uncontitutional mandate instead of creating jobs - every one is so sick of this guy and his ideas that nobody will support a single payer system. And I am happy for that.

 

The issue is that an individual mandate may not be constitutional because the Commerce Clause may not give Congress the authority to impose it. Single payer would be unquestionably constitutional because of the Taxing and Spending Clause, which is the same constitutional basis for Social Security and Medicare.

 

And what does that do for you if the American people are so put off by this last bill and the huge deficits that a single payer never passes?

 

Nothing. I think single payer will pass one day. I was just pointing out the constitutional flaw in the new healthcare law and proposing a thoroughly constitutional alternative.

 

Be specific. Which article or amendment is violated?

 

And it does not say that health care id not to be regulated by the government. To say that it is not listed, thus is unconstitutional is a very weak argument. It is like those who oppose the trinity because the word trinity is not in the Bible ... a very weak argument.

Some would argue that health care is covered under the "general welfare" clause.

Does the phrase, "welfare of the United States" included the citizens of said country? Like the Bible, it all depends on how you interpret certain words.

Is Social Security unconstitutional?
Is Medicare unconstitutional?
Is the Department of Agriculture unconstitutional?

 

How about the amendment that says everyone has the right to be secure "in their person..."? Privacy, that is. The government cannot force anyone to have an abortion or not to have one-- as current law is-- but it can force everyone to purchase a product many do not want to an end many will not use, for religous, philosophical or other reasons?

 

Actually, the opposite is true - to say that whatever the U.S. constitution does not expressly forbid the federal government from doing, it can do. Human nature being what it is, the path you advocate can only end in tryanny.

 

Not nearly as weak as your argument that the federal government can do anything that is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

The 10Th amendment says otherwise.