logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
LegalGround Forum >> is the present healthcare bill unconstitutional?
| 3/25/10 12:04 PM | |
ashleigh11
8 
Member Since: 1/20/03 Posts: 1223 |
i'm interested in hearing opinions from people with credibility. i'm tired of hearing fox news talking points or liberal moral outrage on the matter. from my understanding, the bill may be unconstitutional because the federal government is forcing people to participate and then using the i.r.s. to enforce it and levy fines. also, where does a lay person go to research things like this on his own? i don't care to watch network talking heads for my information. thanks |
| 3/25/10 2:44 PM | |
|
goku
Member Since: 8/6/08 Posts: 7955 |
yes |
| 3/26/10 10:54 AM | |
|
419
39
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 15722 |
If social security has been deemed constitutional, why wouldn't this bill? |
| 3/26/10 11:43 AM | |
|
goku
Edited: 03/26/10 11:49 AM Member Since: 8/6/08 Posts: 7972 |
419 - If social security has been deemed constitutional, why wouldn't this bill? well, for one, the health care bill is more invasive imo and two, when was the last time the constitutionality of social security was tested... ..and to think of it...doesnt the fed have the power to tax? |
| 3/27/10 1:06 AM | |
|
KenTheWalrus
11
Member Since: 3/12/07 Posts: 422 |
Its constitutional until a court finds it unconstitutional. This is where the law gets fun. Its all about the better argument now. -ken |
| 3/27/10 1:34 AM | |
|
KenTheWalrus
11
Member Since: 3/12/07 Posts: 423 |
As far as sources, it all depends on what your goal is and what the topic is. If you're looking for opinions, google and reputable news sources will have those. If you're looking for legal analysis, I believe findlaw.com might have general FAQ stuff. Wikipedia usually has decent breakdowns of legal topics and the more pertinent cases on specific subjects. For copies of the actual codified laws, federal and state sites have those. President Obama's site usually has a good breakdown of the various initiatives he pushes. Granted, those breakdowns are based upon how the initiatives are intended to work versus how they will actually work, both procedurally and legally. They are also subject to all of the attachments and changes that will happen when the bill moves through the House and Senate. If you want Civil Rights information, ACLU.org has alot of commentary, although they have a very biased outlook (whether that is good or bad is up to the reader). My suggestion is to read all opinions on healthcare reform. Healthcare Reform will certainly, in my mind, reach the Supreme Court and probably right off the bat. Like I said above, it's in the hands of the best argument now. On a side note to anyone in law school, I was told that there was an attachment added to this bill which will effectively end FFELP. This could affect your future student loans. Might be something to talk to your financial aid office about. -ken |
| 3/27/10 10:10 PM | |
|
ashleigh11
8
Member Since: 1/20/03 Posts: 1224 |
thanks for your help, ken. |
| 3/29/10 11:25 AM | |
|
Steve72
21
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 65060 |
Decent discussion on both sides in this OG thread |
| 4/5/10 2:31 PM | |
Cookie Monster
Member Since: 3/3/03 Posts: 13495 |
Even if it is, its not going to matter... the Constitution is worthless anymore anyway. |
| 4/10/10 9:39 PM | |
|
cuzz63
3
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 6415 |
I am not totally sure but seems the SCOTUS can deem parts unconstitutional and leave other parts alone. Maybe they decide the mandate that everybody has to buy Health Insurance is unconstitutional and they stop that part from being implemented. |
| 4/17/10 11:49 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 4373 |
The problem with our legal system is that it is no longer based on the constituion but rather law is now based on the decisions of judges...what a nasty turn our great nation has taken. The obsession our legal system has with case law is just sickening. |
| 4/19/10 3:07 PM | |
|
KenTheWalrus
11
Member Since: 3/12/07 Posts: 449 |
^^^^ The American legal system is based on a common law system limited and tempered by the Constitution, in an incredibly complex fashion. (There is no federal common law, for the most part) States, except Louisiana, are now, and as far as I know have always been, common law jurisdictions. It sounds like you are advocating a civil law system, which the US (minus Lousiana) is not. -ken. |
| 4/22/10 8:49 PM | |
|
Atecexa
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 4400 |
Law is not (supposed to be) made by judges. And it always has puzzled as to why just because one court ruled one way in one case every court after it has to rule the same way in similar cases. It really doesnt make sense. |
| 4/22/10 9:37 PM | |
|
Steve72
21
Edited: 04/22/10 9:46 PM Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 65160 |
Who says it's not "supposed to be" that way? As KenTheWalrus points out, the English system on which the American legal system was (mostly) based is common law....which is largely judge-made law. |
| 4/23/10 12:27 PM | |
|
419
39
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 15850 |
"The problem with our legal system is that it is no longer based on the constituion but rather law is now based on the decisions of judges." I suggest you re-read Article III. "And it always has puzzled as to why just because one court ruled one way in one case every court after it has to rule the same way in similar cases." Stare decisis isn't dispositive. |
| 4/23/10 1:18 PM | |
|
goku
Member Since: 8/6/08 Posts: 8597 |
maybe it IS that way..but it SHOULDNT be that way, and i would argue, was not INTENDED to be that way...who wants a group of unelected lawyers to make rules for the nation? not i |
| 4/23/10 2:14 PM | |
|
Steve72
21
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 65162 |
Even accepting, arguendo, that judges' decisions are the "basis" of our law, what is the reasonign that it was not intended to be that way? |
| 4/23/10 6:51 PM | |
|
419
39
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 15852 |
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..." |
| 4/23/10 8:16 PM | |
|
jbapk
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 9357 |
goku - maybe it IS that way..but it SHOULDNT be that way, and i would argue, was not INTENDED to be that way...who wants a group of unelected lawyers to make rules for the nation? not i "Federalist No. 78 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the seventy-eighth of the Federalist Papers. Like all of the Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius. The essay was published May 28, 1788 and first appeared in a newspaper, where most contemporary readers would have seen it, on June 14 of the same year. It was written to explicate and justify the structure of the judiciary under the proposed Constitution of the United States; it is the first of six essays by Hamilton on this issue. In particular, it addresses concerns by the Anti-Federalists over the scope and power of the federal judiciary, which would have comprised unelected, politically insulated judges that would be appointed for life. Federalist No. 78 is titled, "The Judiciary Department." |
| 4/23/10 9:40 PM | |
|
KenTheWalrus
11
Member Since: 3/12/07 Posts: 453 |
I like having judicial review where a statute or policy that was written and passed by the prettiest faces in the modern media run electoral process is able to be tested for justness when being enforced upon the people. But that might just be me. -ken |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
