Fla. Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional!!!

The word activist comes to mind.

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: It should be obvious that the law is unconstitutional. The government simply was not given the authority to require citizens to purchase specific products.

state governments can.......why not the feds?

Because that power was not granted, to Federal Government by the Constitution.

Grady wrote:

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: It should be obvious that the law is unconstitutional. The government simply was not given the authority to require citizens to purchase specific products.

state governments can.......why not the feds?

Because that power was not granted, to Federal Government by the Constitution.

There are a lot of laws where no specific granting of such power is in the constitution, it's in the interpretation.......the Supreme Court will get that final interpretation.

Merged 2 threads about the Florida Court ruling together.

285 Road Crew

26 other states are included in the lawsuit.

Grady wrote:

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: It should be obvious that the law is unconstitutional. The government simply was not given the authority to require citizens to purchase specific products.

state governments can.......why not the feds?

Because that power was not granted, to Federal Government by the Constitution.

Sure it was.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Supreme Court and numerous other courts have consistently held that essentially the "general Welfare of the United States" is whatever Congress decides it to be.

The Founding Fathers obviously agreed since the Second Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1792 REQUIRED every white male citizen between the ages of 18 - 45 to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided,"

The Founding Fathers even created a socialized hospital system for "sick and disabled seamen" in 1798 by withholding taxes from the wages of seaman to create federal hospitals in the 1798 "For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" Act.

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: It should be obvious that the law is unconstitutional. The government simply was not given the authority to require citizens to purchase specific products.

state governments can.......why not the feds?

Give an example please...

CriticalBill wrote:

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: It should be obvious that the law is unconstitutional. The government simply was not given the authority to require citizens to purchase specific products.

state governments can.......why not the feds?

Give an example please...

Massachusetts, Romneycare requires the individual mandate.

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: It should be obvious that the law is unconstitutional. The government simply was not given the authority to require citizens to purchase specific products.

state governments can.......why not the feds?

Because the federal government wasn't ceded that authority by the states or the people. If they can require you to purchase health insurance, they have the authority to require you to buy life insurance, disability insurance, personal liability insurance.....where does the list end archer? If they have the authority to mandate you buy health insurance, would they then not have the ability to require you visit a doctor annually, or every quarter, because such visits might lower the cost of treating a disease if found earlier and thus it serves the "general welfare"? Have they then the authority to require your diet conform to a set standard because healthier people serves the "general welfare" of the nation? Eat fish at least once a week or pay a penalty because those who eat fish once a week require less health care than those that don't, and since we are allowed to regulate health care under the "general welfare", we are also allowed to regulate anything related to health care, such as your diet. If you don't, we can tax you for your refusal to contribute to the general welfare of the nation by eating healthier, just like we can tax you for not buying health insurance to help provide for the general welfare of the nation.

Are you sure you want to give the federal government the authority to mandate you purchase whatever insurance they decide is in the general welfare of the country for you to have? The road to hell is paved with good intentions archer, as is the road to tyranny...........

It is not a question as to whether we choose to give the federal government that power, the Constitution already has done so.