Federal Health Care Mandate vs States Rights

[/dev/null]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...E9CQUgD9EC1HKG0

[IDBillzFan]

Awesome.

[Doc]

If it goes to the SC, that should be fun.

[sabrecrazed]

Is it time for an Article 5? 34 states already...I think its tme for the fed to be put in check.

[John Adams]

If it goes to the SC, that should be fun.

 

Not really. The states will lose like they always do in 10th Amendment cases. The 10th Amendment is our most meaningless one.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Not really. The states will lose like they always do in 10th Amendment cases. The 10th Amendment is our most meaningless one.

There is some precedent to void Federal law that was justified on the 10th. school zone gun's

[John Adams]

There is some precedent to void Federal law that was justified on the 10th. school zone gun's

 

That's not really state's rights case. That's a commerce clause case where the commerce clause could not be invoked to override the state law because "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce." If the feds had been able to successfully argue that the gun law was an economic activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the state would have lost.

 

Wiki does a fair job covering the issue, noting that in the last 60 years, the Supreme Court sided with the states in two 10th Amendment cases:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution

 

Again, the states will lose.

[Doc]

That's not really state's rights case. That's a commerce clause case where the commerce clause could not be invoked to override the state law because "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce." If the feds had been able to successfully argue that the gun law was an economic activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the state would have lost.

 

Wiki does a fair job covering the issue, noting that in the last 60 years, the Supreme Court sided with the states in two 10th Amendment cases:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution

 

Again, the states will lose.

That the SC has sided with the states twice is notable and suggests it's not a "won't happen." And the SOTU address is still fresh in their minds.

[Jim in Anchorage]

That's not really state's rights case. That's a commerce clause case where the commerce clause could not be invoked to override the state law because "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce." If the feds had been able to successfully argue that the gun law was an economic activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the state would have lost.

 

Wiki does a fair job covering the issue, noting that in the last 60 years, the Supreme Court sided with the states in two 10th Amendment cases:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution

 

Again, the states will lose.

Not so sure. As I recall the meat of the Feds argument was the gun was manufactured in state A, transfered to state B, therefore fall's under Fed regulation, even to the end consumer.

They may have some serious issues claiming that with mandatory heath care.

[Keukasmallies]

What would it take to get Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al., to understand the HC reform, as written, is not in keeping with the wishes of the body politic?

[bills_fan]

That's not really state's rights case. That's a commerce clause case where the commerce clause could not be invoked to override the state law because "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce." If the feds had been able to successfully argue that the gun law was an economic activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the state would have lost.

 

Wiki does a fair job covering the issue, noting that in the last 60 years, the Supreme Court sided with the states in two 10th Amendment cases:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution

 

Again, the states will lose.

 

 

Thats my take as well. Individuals have a much better shot at the SC level saying the mandate is unconstitutional rather than the states.

[keepthefaith]

What would it take to get Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al., to understand the HC reform, as written, is not in keeping with the wishes of the body politic?

 

They don't care. They're buying votes with taxpayer dollars. It's the bread and butter play in the Democrats playbook. This time, however, I think it will backfire. They're really motivating the Republicn turnout in November and again in '12 if they continue on this path.

[ieatcrayonz]

States rights are sort of dumb because States do stupid things. The fedral government is up a step in the hierarchy and should make all the decisions. I think the SC will realize this.

 

If it were up to the States, New Jersey would probably deny care to this poor woman. The Feds have to be the boss to prevent that from happening.

[Dante]

States rights are sort of dumb because States do stupid things. The fedral government is up a step in the hierarchy and should make all the decisions. I think the SC will realize this.

 

If it were up to the States, New Jersey would probably deny care to this poor woman. The Feds have to be the boss to prevent that from happening.

lol your funny. And if you keep eating crayonz your going to need some Obamacare yourself so don't worry about her. I think comrade Obama should investigate her because she is obviously consuming more than her share of food. Depriving some inner city childrens of precious Mickey D's. It's not fair really

[ieatcrayonz]

lol your funny. And if you keep eating crayonz your going to need some Obamacare yourself so don't worry about her. I think comrade Obama should investigate her because she is obviously consuming more than her share of food. Depriving some inner city childrens of precious Mickey D's. It's not fair really

There is a reason we're called the UNITED States of America, not the DISJOINTED States of America. That is because there is an authority above the States which makes them united.

 

I realize that some people like Alaska Darin aka Mr. Limbaw don't realize this but it does not make it less true.

[Dante]

There is a reason we're called the UNITED States of America, not the DISJOINTED States of America. That is because there is an authority above the States which makes them united.

 

I realize that some people like Alaska Darin aka Mr. Limbaw don't realize this but it does not make it less true.

United fine. But if every state had final say wouldn't we all be represented better? I agree we should all be on the same team but I'm really starting to dislike power being too centralized. Look what were getting. A arrogant, misguided socialist toad thats going to ram something down are throats even though most people don't want it. Resorting to bribery and probably blackmail to get the votes to jam this thing. But he's either too dumb or too arrogant to listen. I don't think this guy particularly smart but I don't think he's retarded either. So I'm thinking he is more arrogant than anything. An arrogant socialist is a bad combo. He reminds of Pierre Trudeau who started the "cradle to grave" style of government in Canada. He was a conceded little puke as well.

[ieatcrayonz]

United fine. But if every state had final say wouldn't we all be represented better? I agree we should all be on the same team but I'm really starting to dislike power being too centralized. Look what were getting. A arrogant, misguided socialist toad thats going to ram something down are throats even though most people don't want it. Resorting to bribery and probably blackmail to get the votes to jam this thing. But he's either too dumb or too arrogant to listen. I don't think this guy particularly smart but I don't think he's retarded either. So I'm thinking he is more arrogant than anything. An arrogant socialist is a bad combo. He reminds of Pierre Trudeau who started the "cradle to grave" style of government in Canada. He was a conceded little puke as well.

Nice try by comparing Obama to a Canadian after saying he is not dumb. Very unrealstic. If you say Obama is like a Canadian then he is either a moron or an oxymoron. You can't have it both ways.

 

Anyway, the point is that States will screw it up. They are basically like the minor leagues. They need guidance on how to do things by the people that have been promoted to the federal government. It is like asking the Cardinalls AAA first basemen to pinch hit for Pujols. It ain't gonna happen.

 

Here is the way you should look at it. The Feds do not chime in on everything. You don't find them telling people from Kansas how to farm or from Wisconsin how to make chesse. That is fine because those things are common to those States. When it is something like health care the Feds have more information and definitely need to be in charge. Someone from NY and someone from Texas might be different but both need health care, therefore Texas and NY should do what the Feds say because the Feds have smarter people and EVERYONE's best interest at heart at all times. People from NY and TX would just battle it out.

[Dante]

Nice try by comparing Obama to a Canadian after saying he is not dumb. Very unrealstic. If you say Obama is like a Canadian then he is either a moron or an oxymoron. You can't have it both ways.

 

Anyway, the point is that States will screw it up. They are basically like the minor leagues. They need guidance on how to do things by the people that have been promoted to the federal government. It is like asking the Cardinalls AAA first basemen to pinch hit for Pujols. It ain't gonna happen.

 

Here is the way you should look at it. The Feds do not chime in on everything. You don't find them telling people from Kansas how to farm or from Wisconsin how to make chesse. That is fine because those things are common to those States. When it is something like health care the Feds have more information and definitely need to be in charge. Someone from NY and someone from Texas might be different but both need health care, therefore Texas and NY should do what the Feds say because the Feds have smarter people and EVERYONE's best interest at heart at all times. People from NY and TX would just battle it out.

Hey!!! I'm Canadian you racist!!!lol Feds have smarter people? Now I know your just having fun with me. Suck on a big crayon.

[DC Tom]

Hey!!! I'm Canadian you racist!!!lol Feds have smarter people? Now I know your just having fun with me. Suck on a big crayon.

 

No, he's actually serious.