13 States Sue Federal Government Over Health Bill

LOL

"This is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government."

Guess which branch makes the laws, dumbass! :lol:

There is no chance in Dante's black, frozen Hell that the Supreme Court will overrule it on the basis that it violates the Tenth Amendment; otherwise every single bill ever passed by Congress will suddenly be in dispute. :lol:

This probably wont get too far. I think they should focus more on the legality of federal income tax instead.

Well, I think it's a good thing; this means that, once the Supreme Court upholds the law, we can just refer people to that ruling when they wish to claim that the law is unconstitutional, rather than hearing people attempting to mount that argument for the next three years.

Well that's new. They decide to sue the government over the Health Care Bill and not the Patriot Act :roll:.Yagr_Zero

If it were some random private citizen somewhere, I'd just cast them aside... but these are all state Attorney Generals. You thinking it's all political posturing?

Well its good to know that 13 states dont understand the basics of american politicsWolls

It would be cool if a civil war broke out..... *gets popcorn*

What date has been set for the secession?

And which side gets to wear the snazzy, navy-blue uniforms this time? :P

If it were some random private citizen somewhere, I'd just cast them aside... but these are all state Attorney Generals. You thinking it's all political posturing?

Oleg_Huzwog

I was thinking 'Please not Idaho! Please not Idaho! Please not Idaho!' over in my head as I clicked the link... and lo and behold, there's Idaho. I hate my state sometimes.rragnaar

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I was thinking 'Please not Idaho! Please not Idaho! Please not Idaho!' over in my head as I clicked the link... and lo and behold, there's Idaho. I hate my state sometimes.nocoolnamejim

What date has been set for the secession?

And which side gets to wear the snazzy, navy-blue uniforms this time? :P

Stesilaus

*puts hand up* can england play this time too? We has red uniforms

LOL

"This is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government."

Guess which branch makes the laws, dumbass! :lol:

Theokhoth

Yeaah you'd think an attorney general would know these things :lol:

Kudos to them. Do it. Do it for America.

Is everyone a statist on these boards? Mandating that someone has to buy health insurance is absurdly unconstitutional.

And no, car insurance IS NOT the same.

[QUOTE="Wolls"]Well its good to know that 13 states dont understand the basics of american politicsTheokhoth

Yeah, I was more talking about just the votes. It's really a shame that more work wasn't done to compromise. While I'm glad the bill made it's way through, I feel like it was done at the expense of the republicans. I'm hoping the senate will have more luck getting both parties on board, even if it's just by a smidgen.spazzx625

Is everyone a statist on these boards? Mandating that someone has to buy health insurance is absurdly unconstitutional.

And no, car insurance IS NOT the same.

airshocker

You know, I've seen a lot of people make that claim without stating why. Care to enlighten us? Please support your argument with specific citations from The Constitution.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]The crux of the argument here is the fact that they're making it unlawful to not have health care coverage, be it private or government insurance. The Tenth Amendment protects states' sovereignty and keeps states from having to enforce a federal mandate (which is why they usually have ways to strongly encourage states' participation in federal initiatives, if you follow). If states have not given the federal government the right to force people to have a health care service, then the federal government cannot suddenly claim it. So it will be interesting to see where this goes. If SCOTUS doesn't find it unconstitutional, then I wonder if states would go so far as to try and convene a Constitutional Convention; the check-and-balance in the Constitution that has never been used before.ProudLarry

"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." - 10th Amendment

The federal government is delegated certain powers, but if those powers are neither specifically nor implicitly given to them, then the government has no right to suddenly claim that power. "Forced participation" is something that is implied by this amendment based on case law, similar to how an outright banning of handguns is implied by the 2nd Amendment based on case law. That's the angle this case is going to involve; they're going to argue that it's unconstitutional because of forced participation into having a health care plan.

Bear in mind that many states are trying to pass laws or amendments to opt out of this government program. Some states don't want it because they don't have the money to fund a program like this, while others like Massachusetts already have a state-wide health care program that the feds would make redundant (that's why they voted for Scott Brown, not because they suddenly became conservative, but because they don't want to have a federal and state program that does the same thing). The health care fight isn't exactly over, and I don't think people should be scoffing at this. It could all get very nasty.

Well its good to know that 13 states dont understand the basics of american politicsWolls

But do understand the limits of power placed on the Federal government by the Constitution and States rights as well.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Yeah, I was more talking about just the votes. It's really a shame that more work wasn't done to compromise. While I'm glad the bill made it's way through, I feel like it was done at the expense of the republicans. I'm hoping the senate will have more luck getting both parties on board, even if it's just by a smidgen.nocoolnamejim

You know, I've seen a lot of people make that claim without stating why. Care to enlighten us? Please support your argument with specific citations from The Constitution.

chessmaster1989

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to go through the Constitution for you, sorry. =]

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]The crux of the argument here is the fact that they're making it unlawful to not have health care coverage, be it private or government insurance. The Tenth Amendment protects states' sovereignty and keeps states from having to enforce a federal mandate (which is why they usually have ways to strongly encourage states' participation in federal initiatives, if you follow). If states have not given the federal government the right to force people to have a health care service, then the federal government cannot suddenly claim it. So it will be interesting to see where this goes. If SCOTUS doesn't find it unconstitutional, then I wonder if states would go so far as to try and convene a Constitutional Convention; the check-and-balance in the Constitution that has never been used before.MAILER_DAEMON

"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." - 10th Amendment

The federal government is delegated certain powers, but if those powers are neither specifically nor implicitly given to them, then the government has no right to suddenly claim that power. "Forced participation" is something that is implied by this amendment based on case law, similar to how an outright banning of handguns is implied by the 2nd Amendment based on case law. That's the angle this case is going to involve; they're going to argue that it's unconstitutional because of forced participation into having a health care plan.

Bear in mind that many states are trying to pass laws or amendments to opt out of this government program. Some states don't want it because they don't have the money to fund a program like this, while others like Massachusetts already have a state-wide health care program that the feds would make redundant (that's why they voted for Scott Brown, not because they suddenly became conservative, but because they don't want to have a federal and state program that does the same thing). The health care fight isn't exactly over, and I don't think people should be scoffing at this. It could all get very nasty.

The federal government can't do what isn't laid out for it in the Constitution unless the people give it that power through the legal process. By going through Congress, the government has not "suddenly" claimed that power; it's been through the process, is approved by the people and, once it's approved by the Supreme Court, will have the matter settled once and for all.

The people elect our state representatives in Congress, giving their implicit consent to their decisions; the majority of the people currently in Congress voted for the bill, therefore the states have granted the federal government their permission to pass this bill. To break the tenth amendment would be to pass the bill without this process.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You know, I've seen a lot of people make that claim without stating why. Care to enlighten us? Please support your argument with specific citations from The Constitution.

airshocker

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to go through the Constitution for you, sorry. =]

This article does not specifically address the bill passed, and therefore is irrelevant. I want an analysis of why the specific provision passed is unconstitutional (founded, of course, in the constitution), not an article based on speculation of an unwritten provision. Please provide this if you want your assertion to be considered.

This article does not specifically address the bill passed, and therefore is irrelevant. I want an analysis of why the specific provision passed is unconstitutional (founded, of course, in the constitution), not an article based on speculation of an unwritten provision. Please provide this if you want your assertion to be considered.

chessmaster1989

Then I guess we're done talking, me and you.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You know, I've seen a lot of people make that claim without stating why. Care to enlighten us? Please support your argument with specific citations from The Constitution.

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to go through the Constitution for you, sorry. =]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

This article does not specifically address the bill passed, and therefore is irrelevant. I want an analysis of why the specific provision passed is unconstitutional (founded, of course, in the constitution), not an article based on speculation of an unwritten provision. Please provide this if you want your assertion to be considered.

airshocker

Then I guess we're done talking, me and you.

That's fine. I'm just curious why you are willing to claim this provision is unconstitutional, and then will not provide me a constitutional analysis of the specific provision explaining why it's unconstitutional.

I will, however, offer you a chance now to rescind your comment that the provision is unconstitutional in favor of an opinion that it may be unconstitutional which, under the circumstances, seems a more logical position for you to adopt. Elsewise, I will expect a justification.

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to go through the Constitution for you, sorry. =]

airshocker

Well, now we get to see if such arguments hold water.

I don't see how it's more unconstitutional than forcing people to buy into Social Security or Medicare, of which we do every paycheck.Engrish_Major

We're going to be using Social Security and Medicare in the future. Well, MY generation won't be, since there won't be any money left over for us.

I don't agree with Social Security or Medicare either way. I think it's a waste of time to pay for something I'm not going to see.

You don't NEED health insurance. You'd be wise to have it, but the government making it a mandate? That's absurd.

That's fine. I'm just curious why you are willing to claim this provision is unconstitutional, and then will not provide me a constitutional analysis of the specific provision explaining why it's unconstitutional.

I will, however, offer you a chance now to rescind your comment that the provision is unconstitutional in favor of an opinion that it may be unconstitutional which, under the circumstances, seems a more logical position for you to adopt. Elsewise, I will expect a justification.

chessmaster1989

Ah, so you're just nitpicking my words, then?

Now I'm definitely done talking with you.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"] I don't know a whole lot about law, but it would seem that if what you say is true, then just about every law that Congress passes would also have to be approved by the states themselves, and since that doesn't happen, that would strike down every federal law. Am I misunderstanding what you said?Theokhoth

"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." - 10th Amendment

The federal government is delegated certain powers, but if those powers are neither specifically nor implicitly given to them, then the government has no right to suddenly claim that power. "Forced participation" is something that is implied by this amendment based on case law, similar to how an outright banning of handguns is implied by the 2nd Amendment based on case law. That's the angle this case is going to involve; they're going to argue that it's unconstitutional because of forced participation into having a health care plan.

Bear in mind that many states are trying to pass laws or amendments to opt out of this government program. Some states don't want it because they don't have the money to fund a program like this, while others like Massachusetts already have a state-wide health care program that the feds would make redundant (that's why they voted for Scott Brown, not because they suddenly became conservative, but because they don't want to have a federal and state program that does the same thing). The health care fight isn't exactly over, and I don't think people should be scoffing at this. It could all get very nasty.

The federal government can't do what isn't laid out for it in the Constitution unless the people give it that power through the legal process. By going through Congress, the government has not "suddenly" claimed that power; it's been through the process, is approved by the people and, once it's approved by the Supreme Court, will have the matter settled once and for all.

The people elect our state representatives in Congress, giving their implicit consent to their decisions; the majority of the people currently in Congress voted for the bill, therefore the states have granted the federal government their permission to pass this bill. To break the tenth commandment would be to pass the bill without this process.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to go through the Constitution for you, sorry. =]

GabuEx

Well, now we get to see if such arguments hold water.

I also think it's important to consider arguments against the specific provision, rather than a speculative article written months before the actual provision passed. Until I see an argument directed against the actual provision (as opposed to an arbitrary, undefined provision), I won't discuss the possible unconstitutionality of the bill. A legal argument in the courts would require an argument against the specific provision, so I wish for no less.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Yes you are.

"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." - 10th Amendment

The federal government is delegated certain powers, but if those powers are neither specifically nor implicitly given to them, then the government has no right to suddenly claim that power. "Forced participation" is something that is implied by this amendment based on case law, similar to how an outright banning of handguns is implied by the 2nd Amendment based on case law. That's the angle this case is going to involve; they're going to argue that it's unconstitutional because of forced participation into having a health care plan.

Bear in mind that many states are trying to pass laws or amendments to opt out of this government program. Some states don't want it because they don't have the money to fund a program like this, while others like Massachusetts already have a state-wide health care program that the feds would make redundant (that's why they voted for Scott Brown, not because they suddenly became conservative, but because they don't want to have a federal and state program that does the same thing). The health care fight isn't exactly over, and I don't think people should be scoffing at this. It could all get very nasty.

MAILER_DAEMON

The federal government can't do what isn't laid out for it in the Constitution unless the people give it that power through the legal process. By going through Congress, the government has not "suddenly" claimed that power; it's been through the process, is approved by the people and, once it's approved by the Supreme Court, will have the matter settled once and for all.

The people elect our state representatives in Congress, giving their implicit consent to their decisions; the majority of the people currently in Congress voted for the bill, therefore the states have granted the federal government their permission to pass this bill. To break the tenth commandment would be to pass the bill without this process.

The states have the power to grant the federal government the power. No law can be passed in the federal government without the approval of the state representatives who are elected by the states themselves.

If the bill is unconstitutional then it's not due to the tenth amendment by the very fact that it passed Congress and the Senate.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

That's fine. I'm just curious why you are willing to claim this provision is unconstitutional, and then will not provide me a constitutional analysis of the specific provision explaining why it's unconstitutional.

I will, however, offer you a chance now to rescind your comment that the provision is unconstitutional in favor of an opinion that it may be unconstitutional which, under the circumstances, seems a more logical position for you to adopt. Elsewise, I will expect a justification.

airshocker

Ah, so you're just nitpicking my words, then?

Now I'm definitely done talking with you.

No, I am not. All I have done is made a fairly reasonable request that you provide a constitutional analysis directed against the specific provision contained within the health care bill. You have refused to provide it, making me question your stance. If you will provide it, I will be more than happy to consider it.

And if you don't want to talk with me, that's okay, I can't and won't attempt to stop you.

Ah, so you're just nitpicking my words, then?

Now I'm definitely done talking with you.

airshocker

It's not nitpicking to question a word as serious as "unconstitutional". Especially in... y'know... a topic about the healthcare bill being challenged as unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"] I don't know a whole lot about law, but it would seem that if what you say is true, then just about every law that Congress passes would also have to be approved by the states themselves, and since that doesn't happen, that would strike down every federal law. Am I misunderstanding what you said?Theokhoth

"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." - 10th Amendment

The federal government is delegated certain powers, but if those powers are neither specifically nor implicitly given to them, then the government has no right to suddenly claim that power. "Forced participation" is something that is implied by this amendment based on case law, similar to how an outright banning of handguns is implied by the 2nd Amendment based on case law. That's the angle this case is going to involve; they're going to argue that it's unconstitutional because of forced participation into having a health care plan.

Bear in mind that many states are trying to pass laws or amendments to opt out of this government program. Some states don't want it because they don't have the money to fund a program like this, while others like Massachusetts already have a state-wide health care program that the feds would make redundant (that's why they voted for Scott Brown, not because they suddenly became conservative, but because they don't want to have a federal and state program that does the same thing). The health care fight isn't exactly over, and I don't think people should be scoffing at this. It could all get very nasty.

The federal government can't do what isn't laid out for it in the Constitution unless the people give it that power through the legal process. By going through Congress, the government has not "suddenly" claimed that power; it's been through the process, is approved by the people and, once it's approved by the Supreme Court, will have the matter settled once and for all.

The people elect our state representatives in Congress, giving their implicit consent to their decisions; the majority of the people currently in Congress voted for the bill, therefore the states have granted the federal government their permission to pass this bill. To break the tenth amendment would be to pass the bill without this process.

The passing of a bill and the signing of it into law does not "automatically" make it Constitutional. Congress passes bills quite often that become law that have provisions that are unconstitutional. That is why we have a third branch of government, the Supreme Court, that rules on the Constitutionality of legislation that become law and are challenged.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

I'm not going to go through the Constitution for you, sorry. =]

chessmaster1989

Well, now we get to see if such arguments hold water.

I also think it's important to consider arguments against the specific provision, rather than a speculative article written months before the actual provision passed. Until I see an argument directed against the actual provision (as opposed to an arbitrary, undefined provision), I won't discuss the possible unconstitutionality of the bill. A legal argument in the courts would require an argument against the specific provision, so I wish for no less.

Here's a suggestion. You can look up the federal case or cases that were filed today and in them you will find the legal theory and case law that formed the basis of their complaint.

Here's a link that addresses some to the states' reasoning for the suit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L5P020100322

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Yes you are.

"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." - 10th Amendment

The federal government is delegated certain powers, but if those powers are neither specifically nor implicitly given to them, then the government has no right to suddenly claim that power. "Forced participation" is something that is implied by this amendment based on case law, similar to how an outright banning of handguns is implied by the 2nd Amendment based on case law. That's the angle this case is going to involve; they're going to argue that it's unconstitutional because of forced participation into having a health care plan.

Bear in mind that many states are trying to pass laws or amendments to opt out of this government program. Some states don't want it because they don't have the money to fund a program like this, while others like Massachusetts already have a state-wide health care program that the feds would make redundant (that's why they voted for Scott Brown, not because they suddenly became conservative, but because they don't want to have a federal and state program that does the same thing). The health care fight isn't exactly over, and I don't think people should be scoffing at this. It could all get very nasty.

blackregiment

The federal government can't do what isn't laid out for it in the Constitution unless the people give it that power through the legal process. By going through Congress, the government has not "suddenly" claimed that power; it's been through the process, is approved by the people and, once it's approved by the Supreme Court, will have the matter settled once and for all.

The people elect our state representatives in Congress, giving their implicit consent to their decisions; the majority of the people currently in Congress voted for the bill, therefore the states have granted the federal government their permission to pass this bill. To break the tenth amendment would be to pass the bill without this process.

The passing of a bill and the signing of it into law does not "automatically" make it Constitutional. Congress passes bills quite often that become law that have provisions that are unconstitutional. That is why we have a third branch of government, the Supreme Court, that rules on the Constitutionality of legislation that become law and are challenged.

Follow the argument, please. They're talking about the Tenth Amendment; the fact that it passed Congress doesn't make it constitutional but it DOES make it constitutional by the Tenth Amendment.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

The federal government can't do what isn't laid out for it in the Constitution unless the people give it that power through the legal process. By going through Congress, the government has not "suddenly" claimed that power; it's been through the process, is approved by the people and, once it's approved by the Supreme Court, will have the matter settled once and for all.

The people elect our state representatives in Congress, giving their implicit consent to their decisions; the majority of the people currently in Congress voted for the bill, therefore the states have granted the federal government their permission to pass this bill. To break the tenth commandment would be to pass the bill without this process.

Theokhoth

The states have the power to grant the federal government the power. No law can be passed in the federal government without the approval of the state representatives who are elected by the states themselves.

If the bill is unconstitutional then it's not due to the tenth amendment by the very fact that it passed Congress and the Senate.