If this is your first visit to Politirant,please register to begin posting!
Welcome to Politirant!
Here are two views:clearly unconstitutional http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html clearly constitutional http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story
Quote from: Peter1469 on November 15, 2011, 05:02:18 PMHere are two views:clearly unconstitutional http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html clearly constitutional http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.storythe argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....
Quote from: GRUMPY on November 15, 2011, 05:40:07 PMQuote from: Peter1469 on November 15, 2011, 05:02:18 PMHere are two views:clearly unconstitutional http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html clearly constitutional http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.storythe argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....Hard to argue with that logic.
Quote from: Mister D on November 15, 2011, 06:18:26 PMQuote from: GRUMPY on November 15, 2011, 05:40:07 PMQuote from: Peter1469 on November 15, 2011, 05:02:18 PMHere are two views:clearly unconstitutional http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html clearly constitutional http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.storythe argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....Hard to argue with that logic.The problem is that there is SCOTUS precedent that could be used to rule in favor of this communist piece of legislation. Will the Court look to our Founders, or will they look to the FDR socialists who changed our government without our permission?