The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[Evangetholic]

Yes, that's the simplistic argument taught in schools. The Federal government decides whether it's obeying the document that created it, and we're just a bunch of little servants. I believed that for some 36 years, or so. Took a lot of reading to win me away. It's what all respectable citizens believe. Do you really want to be respectable?

 

There are at least two parties to the Constitution. You're proposing that only one side decides whether or not an action falls within that contract.

 

This is the Catholic urge to revolt. Rome usually objects.

but then again "John Marshall has made his decision..."

[Winchester]

This is a great point.  If the Supreme Court makes some decision that the states (or at least a majority of them) think is poo they have no legal recourse. 

 

The Supreme Court is the only branch of government with almost no real check to it's power.  There is that whole amendment thing, but really those things rarely ever pass.  Perhaps the states should have some authority in deciding whether Supreme Court decisions are final.

 

State nullification is a legal recourse. As is jury nullification.

 

Judicial review as a real, final word, is not explicit in the Constitution. It's an innovation.

[r2Dtoo]

State nullification is a legal recourse. As is jury nullification.

 

Judicial review as a real, final word, is not explicit in the Constitution. It's an innovation.

State nullification applies to the amendment procedure which is not that easy, and requires an act of Congress to institute. I have never heard of a Supreme Court case being overruled by a jury, however.

[Winchester]

State nullification applies to the amendment procedure which is not that easy, and requires an act of Congress to institute. I have never heard of a Supreme Court case being overruled by a jury, however.

 

No, it doesn't. It just requires the state legislature to tell the Feds to piss off.

 

The National ID act has been stymied by states doing just this.
 

http://www.nullifynow.com/

[4588686]

Yes, that's the simplistic argument taught in schools. The Federal government decides whether it's obeying the document that created it, and we're just a bunch of little servants. I believed that for some 36 years, or so. Took a lot of reading to win me away. It's what all respectable citizens believe. Do you really want to be respectable?

 

 

I guess if you only see the causality as going one way.  Which is itself simplistic.  Yes.  The federal government decides whether it is following the law.  That how our government works.  That's how our constitution sets up the system to work. If you don't like the determination that the federal government makes then you can replace the members of that government with members who take a view in line with you to reinterpret the matter, or you can change the constitution, or both.   You be as bombastic as you want that doesn't change legal reality.  A legally elected legislature and President passed and signed the bill and a legally appointed court affirmed it.  So it's constitutional.  End of story.  Unless another legally elected legislature overturns it and a legally elected President signs that bill or a legally appointed Supreme Court changes its mind.  Then it will not be Constitutional.  

 

 

There are at least two parties to the Constitution. You're proposing that only one side decides whether or not an action falls within that contract.

 

No.  I'm describing legal reality.  For all your railing against government you're the one fetishizing a legal document.  The Constitution is a document that is in some respects positive and in many respects flawed and/or simply outdated.  Just because something is Constitutional doesn't mean it is good.  I think slavery is awful and anyone who took legal or illegal means to subvert the institution was perfectly justified.  Anyone who said that the federal governments attempts to recapture fugitive slaves should be opposed and, if necessary, violently resisted would have my full support.  But anybody who claimed that slavery was unconstitutional would be obviously wrong.   

No, it doesn't. It just requires the state legislature to tell the Feds to piss off.

 

The National ID act has been stymied by states doing just this.
 

http://www.nullifynow.com/

 

 

Nullification is found nowhere in the Constitution.  Nor is the legal theory that supports it.  Nowhere does the constitution present itself as a contract between sovereign states.  

Edited February 22, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

I guess if you only see the causality as going one way.  Which is itself simplistic.  Yes.  The federal government decides whether it is following the law.  That how our government works.  That's how our constitution sets up the system to work.

Nope.

That's what you're taught. There's quite a lot of opposition, to that. Admittedly, the nationalists have won. That doesn't make them right.

Mainstream isn't cool.

10th amendment. The States don't have their powers enumerated in the Constitution. We've been over this. Honestly.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm

There is a large world, out there.

Good God, your argument is that anything the Federal government colludes on becomes constitutional. That's just nucking futs. Think about it.

You might want to read the constitutional conventions. How the contract was sold is important. Edited February 22, 2013 by Winchester

[4588686]

Nope.

That's what you're taught. There's quite a lot of opposition, to that. Admittedly, the nationalists have won. That doesn't make them right.

Mainstream isn't cool.

10th amendment. The States don't have their powers enumerated in the Constitution. We've been over this. Honestly.

Nobody said that the powers of states were enumerated.  That's not in any sense a substantive argument.  The Federal government has implied powers.  Unlike your unconstitutional theory of nullification, the idea of implied powers is actually explicitly stated in the constitution.  States don't have all rights.  They have rights not enumerated to the federal government or the people.  You ignore that people part and just give everything to the states because you are reading through the prism, also not found or suggested anywhere in the constitution, that the Constitution is a compact between sovereign states.  

Edited February 22, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

I'm not a Hamiltonian. Implied powers blow.

I'm going by history. The nationalist arguments are unconvincing. I was a nationalist. That totally gives me cred.

I hate you for putting me on the side defending the Constitution.

[Winchester]

Of course, it could all be confirmation bias. But I like to think that my recent, massive overcomation of confirmation bias (chronicled on PM) means I'm immune.

 

I also like to think I'm king of the lizard people.

[add]

Of course, it could all be confirmation bias. But I like to think that my recent, massive overcomation of confirmation bias (chronicled on PM) means I'm immune.

 

I also like to think I'm king of the lizard people.

I thought Jim was the lizard king?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5U0PloKp8A

 

[add]

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform, besides the massive Premium increase


1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

[Fidei Defensor]

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform, besides the massive Premium increase


1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

 

Freedoms everyone else loses without healthcare reform

 

1. the right to have access to healthcare at all.

[Lilllabettt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKXDF5Bywkk