Posted on 12/04/2012 5:51:13 AM PST by Resettozero
“What Constitutional power does they Federal Gov’t have over INTRASTATE commerce?”
None. But they have court-created power over commerce which “substantially affects” interstate commerce. Heck, they have power over any activity which affects interstate commerce, even if it isn’t commerce.
That’s boy at issue here. The mandate was not upheld under the commerce clause. It supposedly derives from the taxing power. Which means it’s not a mandate, really, just a hint how not to get taxed. If you’re wondeing just what is the taxing power and for what purposes and by what means it can be invoked, well, it’s basically unlimited. You can raise taxes however you want and spend the money after you get it as you please, you being the feds. Unless it affects “discreet minorities,” or in other words is politically incorrect, or very obviously violates one of the rights in the Bill of Rights they still choose to pay attention to.
I love it. This loser can't actually address the constitutional arguments madeThat's the job of the SCOTUS. You may have heard about their decision. Arguments on Internet forums about the constitutionality of Obamacase are pointless. Basically, the arguments now are, "We lost, they must have cheated." That'll go a long way on a middle school playground, but not in the real world.
“You and I seem to agree on your other points, except...”
That point was me anticipating what the MSM will say, for the record.
Fort Sumter redo. Rebel Yell.
The SC bill is unconstitutional? How? Via the supremacy clause? That dog will only hunt if you’re right and Obamacare is constitutional. But that’s exactly what’s at issue. If SCOTUS is right then the supremacy clause triumphs. If South Carolina is right the 10th amendment has its back. Might Makes Right devised the last major fight between states and the feds, granted. So it is largely purposeless.
But so is Colorado’s anti-prohibition stand or California’s antiimmigration law stance. Go call them embarrassing for a while.
You’re right, but you ain’t gonna be very popular.
Well...No one here agrees with your opinion so I guess you really are Mr. Know it All - at least in your own little world.
“That’s the job of SCOTUS”
Says who? Not the Constitution. I realize it’s become a so-called “informal amendment,” but it is productive of all manner of evil. Think egotism instance, of Bush the Younger’s refusal to veto the incumbency protection act (McCain-Reinhold) on the trust that SCOTUS would faithfully execute its responsibility. Not that it wasn’t a lie and an evasion of responsibility on Bush’s part. Nevertheless he could have used the veto power as presidential review and didn’t. SCOTUS is not the only body capable of blocking unconstitutional laws.
State nullification and jury nullification don’t as obviously exist because they’re not talked about as much as the equally unwritten power of judicial review. But they are ideas with a long pedigree, and I believe states are under no legal obligation to follow laws they deem inapplicable no matter what SCOTUS says.
Are there any park rangers guarding the monument on Fort Sumter?
If SCOTUS is right then the supremacy clause triumphs.
If? If the SCOUTUS is right? The SCOTUS are the refs here -- they're right by definition. You can argue a SCOTUS decision all you want, but unless you're arguing it in front of the SCOTUS, it's moot. If there's a valid 10th Amendment challenge to Obamacare, then no actual constitutional lawyer has realized it. That suggests to me that there isn't one. And what power did Congress invent? They have the power to pass legislation and the power to tax; that's all they need (according to SCOTUS). A lot of people are possessed of a rather inflated understanding of the 10th Amendment. It doesn't apply here or someone credible would be trying to apply it.
But so is Colorado’s anti-prohibition stand or California’s antiimmigration law stance. Go call them embarrassing for a while.
I don't have to. Feds will continue to raid marijuana dispensaries in California and look for them to start raiding private homes in Colorado in the near future... and there's nothing California or Colorado can do about it.
“That’s the job of SCOTUS”
Says who? Not the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2:
The judicial power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...
Yeah, the Constitution. If you think something is unconstitutional, you petition the Supreme Court. If you lose, you are wrong. Those are the rules in the Constitution.
Well, no. The SCOTUS is not the ultimate source of sovereignty in our system - regardless of how much it likes to regard itself as such.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS itself can render unconstitutional decisions.
“the arguments now are, ‘We lost, they must have cheated.’”
Isn’t that the implicit argument whenever SCOTUS reverses itself? Take one of the Levy’s favirite cases, Brown. Didn’t it declare the court’s thumb was on the scale in Plessy? Even if only SCOTUS can correct SCOTUS people arguing against segregation between Plessy and Brown weren’t just bellyaching.
One of the things that annoyed me most about Robert’s decision was how he reduced it to “Hey you lost the vote, deal with it.” As if the legal arguments were merely superstructure to the democratic process. Which they are, I grant you. It’s no coincidence you can predict how people will read the law based on party affiliation. But that’s not all it is. There are supposed to be limits, so that not any old thing the majority—or well organized minority—wants becomes law.
Listening to Roberts I don’t get the feeling of a constitutional republic. Say he’s right about the law, just for a second. Still, the way he puts it, the thrust is elections are the thing. Get over it, loser, we’re in now. Sickens me.
The judicial power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...
Yeah, the Constitution. If you think something is unconstitutional, you petition the Supreme Court. If you lose, you are wrong. Those are the rules in the Constitution.
Except that this isn't what the part of Art III, Sec. 2 you quoted actually says. It's saying that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all cases arising in the United States. Not that the word of the SCOTUS is final in determining constitutionality of a law. That doctrine only came into place with the (wrongly decided) Marbury v. Madison (1803) case. In which the SCOTUS gave to itself, without constitutional mandate, the right to determine constitutionality with finality. Circular reasoning which is best done away with.
“That’ll go a long way on a middle school playground”
If there’s one thing kids excel at, it’s playing. And I always found their fanatical devotion to the rules and if not fair play at least not getting screwed over. Can you remember any such spirited debate as when your honor was at stake as a child? Do you ever recall minutiae being of such moment as when winning or losing was at stake during recess?
“The ball was in.”
“No, out.”
“Was not.”
“Was too.”
“Nah-uh.”
“Uh-huh.”
“Sir, you have offended my honor! I say good day.”
That is passion. That is treating life like it matters.
I dont think so. All TAX bills are sup[posed to originate in The House (not the Senate)
There are MANY things UNCONSTITUTIONAL about this hideous legislation and anyone who voted for it should be horsewhipped
What’s really being argued on here is who constitutes the sovereign power in the United States - the people as represented through their respective States who acceded to and established the Constitution, or the SCOTUS, which only exists as an instrument of that Constitution.
I say the people and their respective States are the sovereign power, even above and beyond the word of the SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.