... The Commerce Clause grants congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. But there is a world of difference between regulating commerce and forcing an individual to buy a product. Congress can set safety standards on GM cars since they are sold across state lines, but it cannot force you to buy one. However, they are forcing virtually everyone to buy insurance.
... Enter the IRS (there is a whole other thread on this topic alone). By changing the penalty for non-complaince into a tax issue, the insurance mandate was written to be more in line with Congress’ other power - taxation. The insurance mandate is considered a tax on the uninsured.
... Technically within the bounds of the constitution. But pissing on it all the same, imho.
angola wrote:
Apparently, you've been living in a Communist country your whole life - well as long as you've been forced to buy car insurance. Or when banks - which in theory, shouldn't even have as much power as the government - force you to buy mortgage insurance when you buy a house.
angola wrote:
Apparently, you've been living in a Communist country your whole life - well as long as you've been forced to buy car insurance. Or when banks - which in theory, shouldn't even have as much power as the government - force you to buy mortgage insurance when you buy a house.
State vs. Federal. There is no Federal law requiring car insurance.
Doesn't matter. The only way you could win is if mandates are deemed unconstitutional. Which means state governments couldn't do it either.
States were designed to have much more leeway in what they can do. States have the power to mandate health insurance purchases, the federal government does not. It was when the federal government decided that they trumped everything that we started having the problems we do now.
Car insurance is perfectly legal to force people to buy because you do NOT have a right to drive a vehicle. Health insurance is ILLEGAL for the federal government to mandate because you are forced to buy it just because you are alive.
angola wrote:
Apparently, you've been living in a Communist country your whole life - well as long as you've been forced to buy car insurance. Or when banks - which in theory, shouldn't even have as much power as the government - force you to buy mortgage insurance when you buy a house.
State vs. Federal. There is no Federal law requiring car insurance.
Doesn't matter. The only way you could win is if mandates are deemed unconstitutional. Which means state governments couldn't do it either.
States were designed to have much more leeway in what they can do. States have the power to mandate health insurance purchases, the federal government does not. It was when the federal government decided that they trumped everything that we started having the problems we do now.
Car insurance is perfectly legal to force people to buy because you do NOT have a right to drive a vehicle. Health insurance is ILLEGAL for the federal government to mandate because you are forced to buy it just because you are alive.
Wrong. This is as illegal as federal taxes.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Wisconsin and New Hampshire don't "require" auto insurance, but they do require this:
Every state requires insurance or that you meet financial responsibility requirements through a bond or some other way which shows you are able to pay if you cause damages to another person or property in an automobile accident.
So, to drive, you either have to have insurance your prove you have enough money to pay when you get in a wreck.
jay_a2j wrote:
The people could vote in a NAZI, and that's constitutional too.
Yes, but that is what we liberals are trying to avert.
Yes, because we all know a Stalin would be far better.
When did Stalin become a liberal? Good God man, do you even THINK AT ALL before you post?
Try to follow eh?
We aren't talking liberal, it's what they are trying to get to, SOCIALISM.
Your dishonesty is palpable. You make a mockery of Christianity.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:
Your dishonesty is palpable. You make a mockery of Christianity.
Jay is clueless about true Christianity as are all the hypocrites of the Religious Right. A true Christian, i.e. one who follows the tenets laid out in the Scriptures, does not involve himself with politics (II Timothy 2:4, Colossians 3:2). Jay's obsession with such is a clear indication that he's been sidetracked for some time now.
angola wrote:Wisconsin and New Hampshire don't "require" auto insurance, but they do require this:
Every state requires insurance or that you meet financial responsibility requirements through a bond or some other way which shows you are able to pay if you cause damages to another person or property in an automobile accident.
So, to drive, you either have to have insurance your prove you have enough money to pay when you get in a wreck.
No, all states do not require car insurance but they do require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway.
Yeah, I think the point is made.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:Try to follow eh?
We aren't talking liberal, it's what they are trying to get to, SOCIALISM.
Ever read the Old Testament Jay? God was the first "Socialist". He established a welfare system for the poor in Israel and frequently refers to "giving" to the poor as a way to please Him and gain His favor. The Religious Right are the modern day Pharisees - remember them? They're the ones who crucified Jesus because he called them hypocrites.
jay_a2j wrote:
Yes, because we all know a Stalin would be far better.
When did Stalin become a liberal? Good God man, do you even THINK AT ALL before you post?
jay_a2j wrote:Try to follow eh?
We aren't talking liberal, it's what they are trying to get to, SOCIALISM.
Woodruff wrote:Your dishonesty is palpable. You make a mockery of Christianity.
lol why because I shut you down? Give me a break.
You've done nothing of the sort. However, to answer your question...it's because you seem to live your life going against Christ's teachings, at least based on what you post here.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
b.k. barunt wrote:The Religious Right are the modern day Pharisees - remember them? They're the ones who crucified Jesus because he called them hypocrites.
Honibaz
I think this is an outstanding point regarding the vast majority of the Religious Right...or at the least, those who refer to themselves as The Moral Majority.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
b.k. barunt wrote:The Religious Right are the modern day Pharisees - remember them? They're the ones who crucified Jesus because he called them hypocrites.
Honibaz
I think this is an outstanding point regarding the vast majority of the Religious Right...or at the least, those who refer to themselves as The Moral Majority.
"Moral Majority?" You are dating yourself Woodruff...lol. Haven't heard about them since Reagan.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
I most definitely said "liberal", jay.
Yes, you apparently were not alone in misunderstanding me. I mentioned Stalin would be "better" than Hitler and you assumed that I thought he was liberal. You assumed wrong. He was a socialist. Where does extreme liberalism lead us? Socialism. The dots have been connected, sorry we had to use my pen.
Last edited by jay_a2j on Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:Try to follow eh?
We aren't talking liberal, it's what they are trying to get to, SOCIALISM.
Ever read the Old Testament Jay? God was the first "Socialist". He established a welfare system for the poor in Israel and frequently refers to "giving" to the poor as a way to please Him and gain His favor. The Religious Right are the modern day Pharisees - remember them? They're the ones who crucified Jesus because he called them hypocrites.
Honibaz
He told his followers to "feed the poor" He didn't tell Rome or Caesar to do it. Take a class and get back to me.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
I most definitely said "liberal", jay.
Yes, you apparently were not alone in misunderstanding me. I mentioned Stalin would be "better" than Hitler and you assumed that I thought he was liberal. You assumed wrong. He was a socialist. Where does extreme liberalism lead us? Socialism. The dots have been connected, sorry we had to use my pen.
He was pretty far from a socialist. He was a communist, and a pretty bad one at that.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
I most definitely said "liberal", jay.
Yes, you apparently were not alone in misunderstanding me. I mentioned Stalin would be "better" than Hitler and you assumed that I thought he was liberal. You assumed wrong. He was a socialist. Where does extreme liberalism lead us? Socialism. The dots have been connected, sorry we had to use my pen.
He was pretty far from a socialist. He was a communist, and a pretty bad one at that.
USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
