Federal Mandates date back over 200 years

[Anonymous]

Federal Mandates Have Been Around for over 200 Years

While everyone is arguing about whether Congress can compel everyone to buy a product (such as health insurance) from a private company, few people have noticed that the first time it did so was 220 years ago. On May 8, 1792, Congress passed the Second Militia Act, which ordered every able-bodied white male citizen from 18 to 45 to buy from a private company a musket or firelock and 24 rounds of ammunition for it. The full text of the act is given here: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
The United States had no standing army in 1792, so Congress was thinking that if the British came back, these armed men would form the militia to defend the country.

Congress did not state in the law which section of the constitution authorized this mandate. It could have been either Art. 1, Sec. 1, which gives it the power to raise armies, or conceivably the second amendment, which talks about a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms. Nevertheless, the Second Militia Act was clearly a mandate forcing citizens to buy specific products from private companies at their own expense. Congress could, of course, have raised taxes and then authorized the President to buy the weapons with federal funds, distributing them to the militiamen in time of war, but it opted for a mandate instead. In any event, the idea of Congress mandating that citizens buy a specific product from a private company has a precedent that has gone unchallenged for 200 years.

 

[Mike]

"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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..."

National defense is just teeny-tiny different? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Lonecowboy]

been poutin for a week and that's the best you could come up with :roll: :roll: :roll:


dang I wish obama would "mandate" I buy a new AR-10 .308-

 

[loomixguy]

been poutin for a week and that's the best you could come up with :roll: :roll: :roll:

Considering all the toddies consumed at the local watering hole, and God knows how much more consumed where ever he may be, Old HardHead did pretty good just to come up with that, LC. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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..."

National defense is just teeny-tiny different? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep- maybe-- but while most of the precedented mandates in history like the Selective Service system and registration have occurred in the name of national security or during wartimes-- it does show that our founding fathers apparently thought that if an issue was important enough to the welfare of the country-- that they felt the federal government had the legal and constitutional ability to mandate it....

 

[loomixguy]

"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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..."

National defense is just teeny-tiny different? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep- maybe-- but while most of the precedented mandates in history like the Selective Service system and registration have occurred in the name of national security or during wartimes-- it does show that our founding fathers apparently thought that if an issue was important enough to the welfare of the country-- that they felt the federal government had the legal and constitutional ability to mandate it....

"Welfare of the country?" That's just what Obamacare is, is welfare for the country.
Now, at the time it was decided that all males between the specified ages have a weapon of some kind, and ammo to go with it, my guess is that every male of those ages already had a weapon and ammo. Big deal.

Keep one thing in mind, Old HardHead......your Messiah, the man you simply can't get enough of, brings this to mind: If it ain't broke, Obama will keep "fixing" it until it is.

 

[cowman52]

In the constitution there was a clause to provide for the defense of the country---that is how guns, powder, and ball were ordered on the population. It was written in PLAIN ENGLISH in the constitution.
Telling ANYONE to buy anything ain't there if you are interested or they have educational courses if you need help.

 

[Steve]

which ordered every able-bodied white male citizen from 18 to 45 to buy from a private company a musket or firelock and 24 rounds of ammunition for it.

has a precedent that has gone unchallenged for 200 years

and un-enforced for at least 200 years as well... :shock:

 

[MoGal]

Keep one thing in mind, Old HardHead......your Messiah, the man you simply can't get enough of, brings this to mind: If it ain't broke, Obama will keep "fixing" it until it is.

I think "fixing" should be exchanged for "changing" and we have exactly what Obama promised.

OT - if you're drinking as much as you get accused of, I sincerely hope you're taking milk thistle so you can keep that liver detoxed.

Obamacare isn't about health insurance..... they've already decided its gonna cost 1.76 trillion dollars over a ten year period..........and we can't afford that............ the bill is all about control over the people... so I look for the supreme court to throw out the health insurance but keep the control over the people intact because that's what they really wanted in the first place. One of these days the control over Americans will be so tight they'll be able to tell you every morsel of food you ate and what you did inside your own home.

 

[Tam]

which ordered every able-bodied white male citizen from 18 to 45 to buy from a private company a musket or firelock and 24 rounds of ammunition for it.

has a precedent that has gone unchallenged for 200 years

and un-enforced for at least 200 years as well... :shock:

Just what do you think would happen if the government decided all able body males had to buy a gun now? Just how many Liberals, that want all guns ban, do you think would abide by the law? :wink:

My guess is that this is one mandate not even Oldtimer would want enforced.

 

[Larrry]

 

[Anonymous]

Yesterday the Supreme Court took up the case of whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress 2 years ago is constitutional. Twenty six states, all with Republican Attorneys General or governors, have filed suit claiming it is unconstitutional. The great irony of these suits is that the whole idea was not invented by President Obama (ObamaCare) or even Mitt Romney (RomneyCare). It's origin goes back to President Richard Nixon, who saw that many people did not have adequate health care and wanted a solution, albeit a Republican solution. His plan had an employer mandate, forcing every business to buy health care for its employees, not unlike ObamaCare, that forces individuals to do the same. Later, the very conservative Heritage Foundation modified Nixon's plan and proposed that individuals, rather than businesses, be forced to buy insurance from private companies. For decades, this was the Republican response to Democratic attempts to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Only after Obama pushed it through did the Republicans begin objecting to what was, in reality, their own plan.



On the face of it, the health industry constitutes about 18% of GDP and operates in all states, so there is little doubt that Congress can regulate the industry under the clause of the constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. What is contested, however, is whether Congress has the power to force individuals to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company or face a fine. Although Nixon never got the plan passed, he certainly never doubted its constitutionality, but times have changed, as has the Republican Party.

There are precedents all over the map concerning this. First, RomneyCare forces residents of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine and this law has never been successfully challenged. However, some people argue that while the states can force people to buy insurance or wear seat belts or eat broccoli, the federal government cannot. Other people argue that since caring for uninsured people costs the country about $116 billion a year in medical costs, and these costs are foisted indirectly on everyone, both through taxes that pick up some of the bills and higher insurance premiums that pick up the rest, then the federal government's attempt to push the costs back to the people generating them surely falls under the heading regulating interstate commerce. Nevertheless, many people strongly object to the federal government's ordering them to do anything, hence the lawsuits.

A precedent that may weigh heavily on some justices is Gonzales v. Raich (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's commerce clause gives Congress the power to prohibit people from growing medicinal marijuana for their own personal use, even in states (e.g., California) where such production is legal. Many legal experts have said that if growing a product that is not part of any commerce, (i.e., is not for sale anywhere), is interstate commerce, then surely regulating 18% of the economy is within Congress' power to regulate commerce as well.
-----------------------------------

Finally, as usual, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Many of the same people who hate the individual mandate also hate Social Security. They want to replace it with a law forcing (i.e., mandating) people to buy a pension or investments from a private insurance company, bank, or broker instead. If the Supreme Court says the government can't force people to buy health insurance from a private company, it is not likely to say the government can force people to buy a pension plan from a private company, thus derailing a major goal of the conservative movement.

Again, none of this is a secret to the justices. The four Democratic appointees are very likely to vote for the law's constitutionality. Clarence Thomas (and probably Samuel Alito) are likely to vote to strike it down. The other three, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy are surely going to think hard to find a way to out of this mess. Roberts cares about the Court's reputation and probably does not want a 5-4 decision along partisan lines if he can avoid it. Scalia and Kennedy voted with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, so if they vote against the ACA, they are going to be pilloried for saying that growing marijuana for personal medical use is interstate commerce but something that affects 18% of the economy is not.

Interesting that this same court has taken an issue like marijuana and medical marijuana laws- which definitely fit under healthcare more than they do national security- and ruled that thru the Commerce Clause the Federal governments mandates and laws on marketing it can override state laws and states right and take away everyone in those states right to a form of state allowed medical treatment ....

 

[Mike]

You cannot be serious. :lol:

 

[MoGal]

If it was really about healthcare, they could change the Medicaid laws because that's mostly funded by the federal government. They could lower spenddown Medicaid amounts (this is when someone does not qualify for Medicaid normally, but when they have a catastrophic medical illness, they can qualify).

For example, a senior couple has $3200.00 month income. One spouse has open heart surgery and the medical bill is $200,000.00 . Based on their income the medicaid spenddown amount was $1800.00. Since the medical bill was over $1800.00 they were approved for medicaid spenddown for that month. Of course one cannot have available assets such as stocks, bonds, assets that could be used for the hospital bill, but the majority of Americans do not have it.

There's a lot of things they could do IF it was really about health insurance.

 

[Mike]

There's a lot of things they could do IF it was really about health insurance.

That's just it. It isn't about healthcare. It's about supressing State's Rights and making the entire nation dependent on the almighty Federal Gov't.

They're too stupid to see it. :roll:

I was just reading about the casualties in the "War Of Northern Aggression". Using later Census data some researchers came up with over 600,000 Northern deaths and just over 200,000 deaths. Who really won the war???????????

I'm ready. Rick Perry had it right. Secede...................

 

[Steve]

Yesterday the Supreme Court took up the case of whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress 2 years ago is constitutional. Twenty six states, all with Republican Attorneys General or governors, have filed suit claiming it is unconstitutional. The great irony of these suits is that the whole idea was not invented by President Obama (ObamaCare) or even Mitt Romney (RomneyCare). It's origin goes back to President Richard Nixon, who saw that many people did not have adequate health care and wanted a solution, albeit a Republican solution. His plan had an employer mandate, forcing every business to buy health care for its employees, not unlike ObamaCare, that forces individuals to do the same. Later, the very conservative Heritage Foundation modified Nixon's plan and proposed that individuals, rather than businesses, be forced to buy insurance from private companies. For decades, this was the Republican response to Democratic attempts to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Only after Obama pushed it through did the Republicans begin objecting to what was, in reality, their own plan.



On the face of it, the health industry constitutes about 18% of GDP and operates in all states, so there is little doubt that Congress can regulate the industry under the clause of the constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. What is contested, however, is whether Congress has the power to force individuals to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company or face a fine. Although Nixon never got the plan passed, he certainly never doubted its constitutionality, but times have changed, as has the Republican Party.

There are precedents all over the map concerning this. First, RomneyCare forces residents of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine and this law has never been successfully challenged. However, some people argue that while the states can force people to buy insurance or wear seat belts or eat broccoli, the federal government cannot. Other people argue that since caring for uninsured people costs the country about $116 billion a year in medical costs, and these costs are foisted indirectly on everyone, both through taxes that pick up some of the bills and higher insurance premiums that pick up the rest, then the federal government's attempt to push the costs back to the people generating them surely falls under the heading regulating interstate commerce. Nevertheless, many people strongly object to the federal government's ordering them to do anything, hence the lawsuits.

A precedent that may weigh heavily on some justices is Gonzales v. Raich (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's commerce clause gives Congress the power to prohibit people from growing medicinal marijuana for their own personal use, even in states (e.g., California) where such production is legal. Many legal experts have said that if growing a product that is not part of any commerce, (i.e., is not for sale anywhere), is interstate commerce, then surely regulating 18% of the economy is within Congress' power to regulate commerce as well.
-----------------------------------

Finally, as usual, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Many of the same people who hate the individual mandate also hate Social Security. They want to replace it with a law forcing (i.e., mandating) people to buy a pension or investments from a private insurance company, bank, or broker instead. If the Supreme Court says the government can't force people to buy health insurance from a private company, it is not likely to say the government can force people to buy a pension plan from a private company, thus derailing a major goal of the conservative movement.

Again, none of this is a secret to the justices. The four Democratic appointees are very likely to vote for the law's constitutionality. Clarence Thomas (and probably Samuel Alito) are likely to vote to strike it down. The other three, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy are surely going to think hard to find a way to out of this mess. Roberts cares about the Court's reputation and probably does not want a 5-4 decision along partisan lines if he can avoid it. Scalia and Kennedy voted with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, so if they vote against the ACA, they are going to be pilloried for saying that growing marijuana for personal medical use is interstate commerce but something that affects 18% of the economy is not.

Interesting that this same court has taken an issue like marijuana and medical marijuana laws- which definitely fit under healthcare more than they do national security- and ruled that thru the Commerce Clause the Federal governments mandates and laws on marketing it can override state laws and states right and take away everyone in those states right to a form of state allowed medical treatment ....

the precedence on this is easy.. the court ruled some time ago that wheat grown for personnel use effects commerce by removing a buyer from a larger market.. and that any product sold once sold can not be confined to a local market..

( a decision I disagree with)

equally marijuana is a product bought and sold... and the mandate is not to force a person who would normally stay out of the marijuana market to buy marijuana.


your examples are hardly comparable.. legally.. in fact they are the "exact opposite" of what is being proposed by the administration..

by your logic, if it is legal to shoot a person for trespassing.. then it is also legal to shoot them if they refuse to trespass..

 

[MoGal]

Yes, well, that is the New World Order.... socialism. It's all about control over people. The upper 1 percent will be master and everyone else is serf/slave and disposable at any time. If you don't think so, you can get Haarp'd at any time with an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, tornado or drought. All the while the central bankers play the futures market since they know the Pentagon controls the weather and the poor farmer is crushed in the middle. Therefore, after you've been Haarp'd the people look to the government for assistance and they have the solution: socialism. Since the Midwest clings to its guns and religion (according to Obama in 2008) they decided they needed a backup solution to get rid of the Midwest...... build a biological warfare plant in Kansas and then when the time comes, "accidental" release of biological warfare should pretty much get rid of anybody that Haarp didn't. It may sound farfetched, but its not........ the info is out there on the net if one just googles it. They think, "out of chaos, order" but its actually going to be the opposite, perpetual chaos.

 

[Mike]

Yesterday the Supreme Court took up the case of whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress 2 years ago is constitutional. Twenty six states, all with Republican Attorneys General or governors, have filed suit claiming it is unconstitutional. The great irony of these suits is that the whole idea was not invented by President Obama (ObamaCare) or even Mitt Romney (RomneyCare). It's origin goes back to President Richard Nixon, who saw that many people did not have adequate health care and wanted a solution, albeit a Republican solution. His plan had an employer mandate, forcing every business to buy health care for its employees, not unlike ObamaCare, that forces individuals to do the same. Later, the very conservative Heritage Foundation modified Nixon's plan and proposed that individuals, rather than businesses, be forced to buy insurance from private companies. For decades, this was the Republican response to Democratic attempts to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Only after Obama pushed it through did the Republicans begin objecting to what was, in reality, their own plan.



On the face of it, the health industry constitutes about 18% of GDP and operates in all states, so there is little doubt that Congress can regulate the industry under the clause of the constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. What is contested, however, is whether Congress has the power to force individuals to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company or face a fine. Although Nixon never got the plan passed, he certainly never doubted its constitutionality, but times have changed, as has the Republican Party.

There are precedents all over the map concerning this. First, RomneyCare forces residents of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine and this law has never been successfully challenged. However, some people argue that while the states can force people to buy insurance or wear seat belts or eat broccoli, the federal government cannot. Other people argue that since caring for uninsured people costs the country about $116 billion a year in medical costs, and these costs are foisted indirectly on everyone, both through taxes that pick up some of the bills and higher insurance premiums that pick up the rest, then the federal government's attempt to push the costs back to the people generating them surely falls under the heading regulating interstate commerce. Nevertheless, many people strongly object to the federal government's ordering them to do anything, hence the lawsuits.

A precedent that may weigh heavily on some justices is Gonzales v. Raich (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's commerce clause gives Congress the power to prohibit people from growing medicinal marijuana for their own personal use, even in states (e.g., California) where such production is legal. Many legal experts have said that if growing a product that is not part of any commerce, (i.e., is not for sale anywhere), is interstate commerce, then surely regulating 18% of the economy is within Congress' power to regulate commerce as well.
-----------------------------------

Finally, as usual, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Many of the same people who hate the individual mandate also hate Social Security. They want to replace it with a law forcing (i.e., mandating) people to buy a pension or investments from a private insurance company, bank, or broker instead. If the Supreme Court says the government can't force people to buy health insurance from a private company, it is not likely to say the government can force people to buy a pension plan from a private company, thus derailing a major goal of the conservative movement.

Again, none of this is a secret to the justices. The four Democratic appointees are very likely to vote for the law's constitutionality. Clarence Thomas (and probably Samuel Alito) are likely to vote to strike it down. The other three, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy are surely going to think hard to find a way to out of this mess. Roberts cares about the Court's reputation and probably does not want a 5-4 decision along partisan lines if he can avoid it. Scalia and Kennedy voted with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, so if they vote against the ACA, they are going to be pilloried for saying that growing marijuana for personal medical use is interstate commerce but something that affects 18% of the economy is not.

Interesting that this same court has taken an issue like marijuana and medical marijuana laws- which definitely fit under healthcare more than they do national security- and ruled that thru the Commerce Clause the Federal governments mandates and laws on marketing it can override state laws and states right and take away everyone in those states right to a form of state allowed medical treatment ....

OT could not have been more wrong in his assertion that the "Commerce Clause" would prevail in the ACA.

 

[Anonymous]

Yesterday the Supreme Court took up the case of whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress 2 years ago is constitutional. Twenty six states, all with Republican Attorneys General or governors, have filed suit claiming it is unconstitutional. The great irony of these suits is that the whole idea was not invented by President Obama (ObamaCare) or even Mitt Romney (RomneyCare). It's origin goes back to President Richard Nixon, who saw that many people did not have adequate health care and wanted a solution, albeit a Republican solution. His plan had an employer mandate, forcing every business to buy health care for its employees, not unlike ObamaCare, that forces individuals to do the same. Later, the very conservative Heritage Foundation modified Nixon's plan and proposed that individuals, rather than businesses, be forced to buy insurance from private companies. For decades, this was the Republican response to Democratic attempts to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Only after Obama pushed it through did the Republicans begin objecting to what was, in reality, their own plan.



On the face of it, the health industry constitutes about 18% of GDP and operates in all states, so there is little doubt that Congress can regulate the industry under the clause of the constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. What is contested, however, is whether Congress has the power to force individuals to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company or face a fine. Although Nixon never got the plan passed, he certainly never doubted its constitutionality, but times have changed, as has the Republican Party.

There are precedents all over the map concerning this. First, RomneyCare forces residents of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine and this law has never been successfully challenged. However, some people argue that while the states can force people to buy insurance or wear seat belts or eat broccoli, the federal government cannot. Other people argue that since caring for uninsured people costs the country about $116 billion a year in medical costs, and these costs are foisted indirectly on everyone, both through taxes that pick up some of the bills and higher insurance premiums that pick up the rest, then the federal government's attempt to push the costs back to the people generating them surely falls under the heading regulating interstate commerce. Nevertheless, many people strongly object to the federal government's ordering them to do anything, hence the lawsuits.

A precedent that may weigh heavily on some justices is Gonzales v. Raich (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's commerce clause gives Congress the power to prohibit people from growing medicinal marijuana for their own personal use, even in states (e.g., California) where such production is legal. Many legal experts have said that if growing a product that is not part of any commerce, (i.e., is not for sale anywhere), is interstate commerce, then surely regulating 18% of the economy is within Congress' power to regulate commerce as well.
-----------------------------------

Finally, as usual, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Many of the same people who hate the individual mandate also hate Social Security. They want to replace it with a law forcing (i.e., mandating) people to buy a pension or investments from a private insurance company, bank, or broker instead. If the Supreme Court says the government can't force people to buy health insurance from a private company, it is not likely to say the government can force people to buy a pension plan from a private company, thus derailing a major goal of the conservative movement.

Again, none of this is a secret to the justices. The four Democratic appointees are very likely to vote for the law's constitutionality. Clarence Thomas (and probably Samuel Alito) are likely to vote to strike it down. The other three, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy are surely going to think hard to find a way to out of this mess. Roberts cares about the Court's reputation and probably does not want a 5-4 decision along partisan lines if he can avoid it. Scalia and Kennedy voted with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, so if they vote against the ACA, they are going to be pilloried for saying that growing marijuana for personal medical use is interstate commerce but something that affects 18% of the economy is not.

Interesting that this same court has taken an issue like marijuana and medical marijuana laws- which definitely fit under healthcare more than they do national security- and ruled that thru the Commerce Clause the Federal governments mandates and laws on marketing it can override state laws and states right and take away everyone in those states right to a form of state allowed medical treatment ....

OT could not have been more wrong in his assertion that the "Commerce Clause" would prevail in the ACA.

Wrong on the "commerce clause"-- right on the court upholding the law...I was not sure how they would do it- or who would vote how-but thought on such a big and important of an issue they might leave legislating and running the country to the legislators, which is exactly what Roberts did and said...


And that same author did touch on the Raich decisions effect:

Difference Between ACA and Raich Explained
In their dissent, the four justices who voted to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional did grapple briefly with Gonzales v. Raich and why its broad interpretation of the commerce clause ("growing marijuana for personal use is interstate commerce") did not apply in the ACA case. The explanation in essence is that since there would be no way to distinguish interstate marijuana from intrastate marijuana, the only practical solution was to ban people from growing it altogether. But using that reasoning, any time any state permitted a product or service not allowed in all states it would have to be banned because some of it might leak into the states where it was forbidden or people from those states might come get it where it was allowed. Think about 19-year-olds in states where the drinking age is 21 but who live close to the border of a state where it is 18. We could also think about love-stricken 16-year-olds living in New York City and looking longingly across the Hudson River to New Jersey, where the age of consent is 16 rather than New York's 17, but we are not going there.

 

[Mike]

Interesting that this same court has taken an issue like marijuana and medical marijuana laws- which definitely fit under healthcare more than they do national security- and ruled that thru the Commerce Clause the Federal governments mandates and laws on marketing it can override state laws and states right and take away everyone in those states right to a form of state allowed medical treatment ....

OT could not have been more wrong in his assertion that the "Commerce Clause" would prevail in the ACA.

Wrong on the "commerce clause"-- right on the ruling upholding the law...I was not sure how they would do it- or who would vote how-but thought on such a big and important of an issue they might leave legislating and running the country to the legislators, which is exactly what Roberts did and said...

That's stupid thing to say. Congress went to great lengths to say that the tax was not a tax, but a penalty.

If SCOTUS had left the legislating & verbage to Congress plus Buckwheat & upheld their view, even by Robert's rationale, the law would not have stood.

You have NOTHING in common with Roberts in your views of the Constitution.

Wrong is wrong and you were wrong in your approach as to how it should have been viewed. That in itself invalidates completely your so-called projection.

I guess now you'll try to say that you know more than Anthony Kennedy and his Constitutional authority because you're a podunk JP? You hung your guess on the "Commerce Clause" and it was shot down.

He said "WE" "Invalidate the Act in it's entirety". :roll:

You're a narcissistic SOB. If you're wrong, say " I was wrong". I promise it won't hurt.