Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RidgeHunter" data-source="post: 1831030" data-attributes="member: 4319"><p>If such a thing as a strict reading of the constitution existed, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court. The state's rights thing in defense of a state-level mandate seems like a cop-out for people that preach "limited government, more freedom". </p><p></p><p>Sure, you can look at it as the states are free to implement a mandate on a state level and believe the Feds are not. But you could also look at the state's mandate overriding the individual rights of the individuals living in that state. Depends on how any given internet Constitutional scholar interprets the 9th and 10th amendments. </p><p></p><p>Again - I live in reality, not 1776 on paper. The Federal Government "overstepped its bounds" according to some people decades upon decades ago. Under your strict reading of the constitution, the vast majority of programs implemented and departments created on a Federal level for the past 100+ years are blatantly unconstitutional - as is the vast majority of government spending. The only difference is that existing law and federal departments don't make a good political football for the 2012 presidential election. You're implying awfully noble motivation for what is awfully petty dissent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RidgeHunter, post: 1831030, member: 4319"] If such a thing as a strict reading of the constitution existed, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court. The state's rights thing in defense of a state-level mandate seems like a cop-out for people that preach "limited government, more freedom". Sure, you can look at it as the states are free to implement a mandate on a state level and believe the Feds are not. But you could also look at the state's mandate overriding the individual rights of the individuals living in that state. Depends on how any given internet Constitutional scholar interprets the 9th and 10th amendments. Again - I live in reality, not 1776 on paper. The Federal Government "overstepped its bounds" according to some people decades upon decades ago. Under your strict reading of the constitution, the vast majority of programs implemented and departments created on a Federal level for the past 100+ years are blatantly unconstitutional - as is the vast majority of government spending. The only difference is that existing law and federal departments don't make a good political football for the 2012 presidential election. You're implying awfully noble motivation for what is awfully petty dissent. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom