Supreme Court ObamaCare

Something the Dog Said wrote: Only in your fantasy world. The Constitution is quite clear that all states rights are subservient to the federal authority. In your fantasy world, the United States is merely a loose union of independent countries, similar to the European Union. That is not the case here in the real world. Massachusetts is not an independent country, but is a subset of the United States. The constitution of Massachusetts is subservient to the U.S. Constitution and can not contradict the terms set forth in that document. The laws of Massachusetts can not contradict the laws and authority of the United States. It is similar to the relationship between Park County and the State of Colorado. Park County is a subset of the State of Colorado. While it may enact different laws and regulations than other counties, it may not contradict the Colorado Constitution or the laws of the state of Colorado. Unless you are under the impression that Park County too is an independent territory that has superior rights over the state of Colorado.

No, what is quite clear is that the federal government is only supreme within its delegated powers. The States are supreme in all other areas. The federal government, as an example, may not zone the property in Colorado - that is a function of the general police powers of the State, something which the federal government lacks because it is a government of powers delegated to it from the sovereign powers possessed by the States. Yes, within the delegated powers its laws are supreme, that has already been discussed and stipulated to. Outside of those delegated powers, however, the State law is supreme. All rights of the States are not subservient to the federal authority. The 10th Amendment does not state that all powers not delegated to the States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the United States are retained by the United States, it says the exact opposite of that. All powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people. The States, were they to call a Constitutional Convention, can choose to entirely eliminate either the Constitution or their union and along with that the federal government. The federal government enjoys no such privilege. It may add States to the union, but it may not subtract them. This is the ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the States which the federal government entirely lacks.

It is not I that is living in a fantasy world Dog - it is you. Just as the sovereign States that created the European Union may dissolve that union, the sovereign States of the United States may dissolve their union. This union is more than the loose economic union of the Europeans, it is also a union created to serve the common defense of the States, with all powers to create a Navy, raise a standing army and all that goes with it delegated to a common administrator, but this union is not a sovereign government either. The only sovereign entities are the States themselves and they alone decide what powers are to be delegated to the federal government. The States could, if they desired, take away the delegated power to provide and maintain a navy. The States could, if they desired, make Social Security and Medicare unconstitutional. The States could, if they desired, take away the delegated power to coin money and fix it value. Whatever powers the States have chosen to delegate to the federal government they can decide to take away and restore to themselves, just as the owners of a business can restore to themselves the authority they have delegated to others.

So no Dog, all of the rights that sovereign States are endowed with are not subservient to the federal government. The delegated powers currently held by the federal government are subject to being altered or abolished at any time 75% of the sovereign States decide to alter or abolish them precisely because the federal government is not sovereign. Q.E.D.

Your fixation on "sovereign" states has become quite the obsession. Once again, this country, yes country, get that, we are a country, a nation, not simply a "Loose affiliation of Independent Soveriegn States", but a United States forming a nation. Yes, the Constitution which serves as a basis for this great nation, does limit the power of the federal government, but does not make it subservient to the individual states, despite your assertions. In all powers granted to the federal government, it reigns supreme and overrules any state laws or constitution. You simply choose to ignore the Supremecacy provision of the Constitution. In no regard can the states create any conflict with the Constitution. State constitutions have to be subservient to the US Constitution. The Constitution does allow the ability to amend the Constitution by it's citizens, but that simply proves that the federal government is supreme over the states, since that is the only mechanism that allows the states to change the control the Constitution has over the state. Similarly, state constitutions can also be amended by it's citizens as well. To follow your peculiar assertions, Colorado could enter into an alliance with New Mexico to take over Texas, or could enter into a nuclear proliferation treaty with Iran, or could blockade I 70 to prevent invasion by California tourists.

FYI, the federal government can institute zoning regulations in areas of federal interest and does so all of the time. It has the power of regulating zoning in Colorado in the areas of federal interest, similar to the limitation of the State of Colorado to issue zoning regulations in only areas of state interest. Most zoning regulations are left to the individual community, where the county can issue zoning regulations in areas of county interest, townships can issue zoning regulations in areas of township interest and even neighborhoods through HOAs can issue zoning regulations in areas of the interest of HOAs. Does that mean that Baily is a "sovereign" territory independent from Park County, that Park County is a "sovereign" territory independent from the State of Colorado, or is Baily a subset of Park County, and that Park County is a subset of the State of Colorado. You have avoided answering this analogy previously.

Wrong again Dog, the citizens of the States can't propose amendments to the Constitution, nor ratify any of the proposed amendments. Only the representatives of the States and its citizens in Congress, or the legislatures of the States themselves by calling for a Convention of the States, can propose an amendment. Only the State legislatures, or a Convention called into session by the State authority, can ratify an amendment. The citizens themselves have no direct say in any amendment to the federal Constitution - only in the constitution of the State in which they are a citizen and only then if the constitution of that State makes that possible. Not every State constitution can be amended via the initiative process as the State of Colorado constitution can, there are only 18 such States in the union including Colorado where citizens may amend the constitution of their State. All 50 states require that the citizens ratify amendments, but only 18 of them allow citizens to propose them as well.

And no, the federal Constitution specifically prohibits the actions you speak of in regards to separate agreements between the States or the individual negotiation of treaties with foreign countries. Absent that delegation of power, however, Colorado could negotiate a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Iran because it is as sovereign as Iran is. Absent the delegation of power to declare war being reserved to the Congress, Colorado could declare a war with California and negotiate a peace to end that war because it is sovereign State. The only reason that federal legislation is supreme is that the States agreed to allow it to be supreme when they joined the compact. 38 of them could, at any time, decide to remove that supremacy clause and subject every piece of federal legislation to be accepted by a majority of State governors, or require it to be accepted unanimously by all 50 States before going into effect. The federal government's legislation and judicial decisions are only supreme because the States have all agreed that they will be supreme in certain, limited, areas.

What part of "delegated" is it that you are having trouble understanding Dog? Any power that has been delegated may also be removed. The States could decide to prohibit Social Security as a federal program, they could take away the power to raise an army, they can decide to do away with the Supreme Court entirely, or the presidency, or even the Congress. 38 of them can get together and decide to declare the whole compact null and void with a few strokes of a pen. What of your "country" then Dog? What "nation" exists when it can disappear with the stroke of a pen? Can Congress and the President band together to take away the Statehood of Colorado? Can it divide Colorado into 2 States without the consent of Colorado? Can it decide to make the small States on the eastern seaboard into one large State without the consent of the those States? Of course not - because it is not sovereign and Colorado and all the small states on the eastern seaboard are. The State of Colorado's government, however, could decide to consolidate Jefferson and Park Counties without their consent, or to divide up Park County into two counties - again because Colorado is a sovereign State and as such it has the general police power that any sovereign State has.

The federal government is not supreme outside of the powers delegated to it by the States. It is not a sovereign central government endowed with the plenary power to do what it wishes, when it wishes to whomever it wishes. No matter how much you wish it were so, you wishes will not alter that reality.

PrintSmith wrote: Wrong again Dog, the citizens of the States can't propose amendments to the Constitution, nor ratify any of the proposed amendments. Only the representatives of the States and its citizens in Congress, or the legislatures of the States themselves by calling for a Convention of the States, can propose an amendment. Only the State legislatures, or a Convention called into session by the State authority, can ratify an amendment. The citizens themselves have no direct say in any amendment to the federal Constitution - only in the constitution of the State in which they are a citizen and only then if the constitution of that State makes that possible. Not every State constitution can be amended via the initiative process as the State of Colorado constitution can, there are only 18 such States in the union including Colorado where citizens may amend the constitution of their State. All 50 states require that the citizens ratify amendments, but only 18 of them allow citizens to propose them as well.

And no, the federal Constitution specifically prohibits the actions you speak of in regards to separate agreements between the States or the individual negotiation of treaties with foreign countries. Absent that delegation of power, however, Colorado could negotiate a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Iran because it is as sovereign as Iran is. Absent the delegation of power to declare war being reserved to the Congress, Colorado could declare a war with California and negotiate a peace to end that war because it is sovereign State. The only reason that federal legislation is supreme is that the States agreed to allow it to be supreme when they joined the compact. 38 of them could, at any time, decide to remove that supremacy clause and subject every piece of federal legislation to be accepted by a majority of State governors, or require it to be accepted unanimously by all 50 States before going into effect. The federal government's legislation and judicial decisions are only supreme because the States have all agreed that they will be supreme in certain, limited, areas.

What part of "delegated" is it that you are having trouble understanding Dog? Any power that has been delegated may also be removed. The States could decide to prohibit Social Security as a federal program, they could take away the power to raise an army, they can decide to do away with the Supreme Court entirely, or the presidency, or even the Congress. 38 of them can get together and decide to declare the whole compact null and void with a few strokes of a pen. What of your "country" then Dog? What "nation" exists when it can disappear with the stroke of a pen? Can Congress and the President band together to take away the Statehood of Colorado? Can it divide Colorado into 2 States without the consent of Colorado? Can it decide to make the small States on the eastern seaboard into one large State without the consent of the those States? Of course not - because it is not sovereign and Colorado and all the small states on the eastern seaboard are. The State of Colorado's government, however, could decide to consolidate Jefferson and Park Counties without their consent, or to divide up Park County into two counties - again because Colorado is a sovereign State and as such it has the general police power that any sovereign State has.

The federal government is not supreme outside of the powers delegated to it by the States. It is not a sovereign central government endowed with the plenary power to do what it wishes, when it wishes to whomever it wishes. No matter how much you wish it were so, you wishes will not alter that reality.

You are incorrect on so many levels. It is bizarre how you believe that the "sovereign states" and the "general government" are monolithic entities. They are the representatives of the citizens of this great country. The states do not propose or ratify amendments, the representatives of the citizens do so. The citizens propose and/or ratify any changes to the Constitution through their representatives. And of course these very same citizens through their representatives can also choose to provide all powers to the federal government through this process, consolidate various states together if they so choose, and do anything they damn well desire.

No, the state of Colorado is expressly prohibited from negotiating a treaty with Iran, because it is expressly forbidden from doing so because it is not sovereign but instead is subservient to the federal government. The state of Colorado can not create it's own currency either which if it was truly sovereign, would be allowed. See the Constitution:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Further the state of Colorado is unable to consolidate counties or to divide up counties with the permission of a majority of the citizens of the state of Colorado. It requires an amendment to the Colorado constitution. The state is prohibited from doing so. Since the state can not make those changes, then it must not be sovereign, according to your very own definition, can it?


Of course the federal government is supreme within the powers granted to it by the citizens of this great nation through it's representatives, just as the states are only supreme within the powers limited to it by the Constitution, and by the citizens of its jurisdiction through their state constitutions, which of course, are subservient to the US Constitution. Thus, if the federal government is not to be considered supreme, even though that power is expressly granted in the Constitution, then the states certainly can not be considered supreme. The only true supremacy is in the citizens of this great nation.

This is the real world.

Edited to add:
Actually it only takes a constitutional amendment to take portions from one or more counties to create a new county. According to the Colorado Constitution, in order to merge two counties together or to , it merely takes a majority vote from each of the two counties involved. That monolithic entity the "state" has no say what so ever in that process. Thus, Colorado must not be sovereign, according to your reasoning.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/20 ... crackdown/

Interesting article on the IRS preparations for Obamacare. Get ready to supply a lot more information on your tax forms for "household income" and more complexity.

What does the IRS base your mandate penalty on? This is where it gets hairy. The TAO says that the “IRS will need to determine a taxpayer's compliance with the individual [insurance purchasing] mandate and assess a penalty if coverage is inadequate.”

And the penalty isn’t based on just your personal net income. The penalty will be based on an entirely different number.

“This determination is based on a concept of 'household income,’” TAO has said, adding, “this may differ from the income reported on the taxpayer's return, because it is a composite of all of the income reported by members of a taxpayer's household -- information that may not be readily accessible to the IRS."

Good... The more people they get into the system, the more EVERYONE's costs will go down. It's time the people WITH insurance stop being forced for pay for those without.

Good? Did you even read the article? Sounds like tax forms with Obamacare are going to be infinitely more complicated. Means testing is not simple to do. Say goodbye to 1040-EZ LOL

First Obama was running against the do-nothing Congress and now it looks like he now wants to add the un-elected Supreme Court justices to campaign against too. Wonder how this makes Kagan & Sotomayor feel?

FredHayek wrote: First Obama was running against the do-nothing Congress and now it looks like he now wants to add the un-elected Supreme Court justices to campaign against too. Wonder how this makes Kagan & Sotomayor feel?

Probably as good as those empty-suits, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia...

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: First Obama was running against the do-nothing Congress and now it looks like he now wants to add the un-elected Supreme Court justices to campaign against too. Wonder how this makes Kagan & Sotomayor feel?

Probably as good as those empty-suits, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia...

Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make them empty suits. Going to call them idiots or stupid next?

Picked this up at [url=http://www.electoral-vote.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.electoral-vote.com[/url], a left site about elections, they posted about the Obamacare required insurance mandate and pointed to the 2nd Militia Act, passed in May 1792, which required every able bodied white male between the ages of 18-45 to buy a musket or firelock with 24 rounds of ammo from a private company.
So even in the early days of the country, the Feds were overstepping their authority.
Of course, back then, you could say we were pretty close to being on a war footing with Native Americans to the west, Spanish to the south, and English to the north who we would be fighting again in a few more years.

Did this ever get repealed or are a bunch of city slickers going to have to buy a flintlock soon?