You've been a total and utter dodge on every one thus far. May I suggest if you're going to do that, at least go tot he effort of excuse making LiL goes to, and just decry any uncomfortable questions as "illogical", "offtopic". "Irrelevant", etc, etc, etc.
(By the way, the answer to your question is that the Constitution is a document that enumerates Federal Power. I.e. is sets limits on Federal Power, not on our freedoms. The burden to prove the Fed has the power is on the Fed, and yourself, not on the Citizenry. I'd would say this is a core part of your problem.....in yopur World, if tghe Constitution doesn;t say you can't (or even if it does), then you can, Federal power in ultimate. In my world, if the Constitution does not grant a power, the Fed has no right to use such a power. And in this case, they have no explicit right to this power, unless you can cite your enumerated power than does.....let me save you the effort, the (D) use the All-Powerful Commerce Clause as a catch all for their Power Grabs, including this one).
Considering the huge effect that the cost of healthcare has on the economy... dont think the commerce clause is misused...
as for JetPotato's logic
you chose to eat food, drink water and breathe air... life is apparently optional as the posters in this thread noted. if you want to live without the proper insurance there are ramifications... just like driving without insurance. what Obamacare is was widely considered a great idea by GOP'ers 10 years ago... now Obama does it, it's terrible. I don't get it.Really? I didn't make a choice to learn to operate the vehicle, purchase the car, and my insurance? I was forced to do all that against my will?
Especially when you have no answer beyond "It makes me feel good, so it must be good".
Anything that reduced our liberty, and increases Federal Power, you'd classify as "not misused". You are, in your core arguments here at JI, a Facist and a Tyrant. You support Federal totalitarianism and power, as long as it's your side in power passing laws that restict the freedoms of those you don;t care about, hate, or just don't agree with. Just like every other Tyrant throughout history, you wallow in propaganda about good intentions, whilst working diligently to reduce liberty, and increase the power of Government. Clearly, in your heart, you see man as pathetic and stupid and worthless, unable to take care of himself in even the most basic ways without Mother State to watch over and dominate him.dont think the commerce clause is misused.
It's amazing to me how little you value your own freedom and liberty Bit. I can only hope one day an Administration passes some mandate, or limitation of freedom, that DOES offend and worry you. If only to open your eyes to what you are.
I won't be holding my breath on that though....
Most adults who are capable of obtaining health insurance do so. Most adults that can afford health insurance buy it. Most adults who can provide the necessary information to get health insurance oblige.
The first two, the disabled and the poor, have an out; Medicaid. The last group is the one I would bet taxes the system the most, those that are here illegally. Sure, there is some overlap with the first two groups (more so with the latter), but for the most part this is what everyone is getting at without saying as much.
If that was true in my example you'd be left laying on the street. But the way things currently work you are taken to the hospital.My body is not societies anything. It's mine and mine alone, the idea my body is ssociaties sickens me to my core...and sscares the **** out of me, for what such a blithe statement says about the speaker.
1) At the ballots, which of your votes carries more weight? The vote in the federal election or the one in your state election?
2) What policies are easier to reform or repeal once enacted? State or federal?
3) If you're displeased with say, your property taxes, would it be more feasible to move to a new town or state? Or more feasible to move to a new country if they had been instituted on that level?
4) If a state comes up with effective legislation within its borders that keeps its citizens happy or employed, will other states maybe feel compelled to follow suit or customize to the needs of its own residents? Do states not compete for jobs and taxpayers?
5) Why is social legislation that is right for California also right for Oklahoma, regardless of their desires?
6) What exactly is the issue with handling social issues at the state level? Given that The Constitution clearly limits the federal government's power to exactly what is defined within it, shouldn't the burden be on you to prove why social matters shouldn't be handled on the state level, rather than on me to prove why it shouldn't be on the federal level? Please explain the objection here (although I don't expect the real answer from you or any other lib).
I'll tell you what my ideal scenario is. I'm not the hater of liberalism you might believe. What I'd like to see is a small, conservative federal government that maintains a military for self defense and enacts simple legislation in the interest of interstate and international commerce. I'm fine with liberals sticking around though. I'll need them to enact liberal social policies on my local level. Take your fight on health care, gay marriage, etc. etc. here. You have my support. But the minute you tell me that the ideas that you and I both agree on also have to be inflicted upon those areas that disagree with us, then I'm done with you.
It's the biggest hypocrisy of liberalism. They love to paint themselves as the defenders of equality. Everyone should be treated equally. We should all be accepting of other people's race, sex, age, sexual orientation... but not their beliefs. Defend the rights of all... except for those that have more.
However, the States also have Constiutions they must live up to, and I can always leave a State for another State more in tune with my positions.
Again, States also operate under strict limits of power and authority, as well as under the Constitutional limits and Bill of Rights. The State will operate Policy as it sees fit, but it cannot be my "master" in the same way the Federal Govt. can.Delegating powers to the State governments isn't promoting freedom or liberty, it's promoting that the State be your master.
Because I can choose what State to live in the Union. I cannot choose which Federal Govt. to live under, or even vote to limit it's power int he same way I can in my own State.Why is that better than the current system?
1. We the PeopleHere, I'll ask you a basic question regarding the Constitution: In what order of priority and authority would you put these entities mentioned in our Constitution: "We, the people;" "the States;" "the United States" (as represented by the Congress/Executive/Judicial branches of the federal government)? Complicated question, but at the core of many debates here....
2. The Constitution as Orignally Intended, including all Amendments
2. The States
3. The Federal Govt.
In that order.
Oh, wait, I'm playing the LiL game wrong......your questions are irrelevant, illogical, straw men filled muddly and inconsistnet, and unworthy of beign answered. While I'm being tongue in cheek here, I won't lie, if folks don't start returning the courtesy of answering my own questions as directly as I answer theirs once in a while, I see no reason to stick around.
Speaking of mandates how come HHS can issue waivers out like Candy to constitutents of Nancy Pelosi. 20% of the waivers so far have come out of her district.
If you can't apply the law evenly where is the due process? Who the hell is HHS to issue waivers on a Congressional law that should impact all of us equally.