Thread: Health bill lawsuits are going nowhere

Originally Posted by Consultant

That's the theory on Conyers too, he is likely working from a secret version of the Constitution that has such clauses he mentions.

While only Conyers knows what he meant, it would seem likely to at least some that we probably meant the Welfare clause [article 1 section 8]

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

Putting the semantics of which bill is being sued over aside, any thoughts on the constitutional issues I raised?

If you were an real lawyer I might entertain you. But alas, you're not, so your points are just opinions and not legitimate court recognized constitutional issues.

Sorry kid.

kid, lol.

So, you dont have an educated opinion? My question is invalid because I didnt go to 3 more years of college?

I thought you could discuss and debate.

What is your opinion of the constitutionality of required commerce at the Federal level?

Not answering is a sign of weakness.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

Putting the semantics of which bill is being sued over aside, any thoughts on the constitutional issues I raised?

If you were an real lawyer I might entertain you. But alas, you're not, so your points are just opinions and not legitimate court recognized constitutional issues.

Sorry kid.

kid, lol.

So, you dont have an educated opinion? My question is invalid because I didnt go to 3 more years of college?

I thought you could discuss and debate.

What is your opinion of the constitutionality of required commerce at the Federal level?

Not answering is a sign of weakness.

Desperate much?

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

Putting the semantics of which bill is being sued over aside, any thoughts on the constitutional issues I raised?

If you were an real lawyer I might entertain you. But alas, you're not, so your points are just opinions and not legitimate court recognized constitutional issues.

Sorry kid.

kid, lol.

So, you dont have an educated opinion? My question is invalid because I didnt go to 3 more years of college?

I thought you could discuss and debate.

What is your opinion of the constitutionality of required commerce at the Federal level?

Not answering is a sign of weakness.

Desperate much?

Desperate for what?

You still haven't answered. If it is constitutional, prove it. I'll ask the question yet another way, so you can ignore it in another way.

Assumption of the Bill: The Federal Government has the authority to require private citizens to enter into private business transactions for a good or service, health insurance in this case. Citizens who fail to do so may be punished financially for not doing so.

triggerhappy2005's Take: I agree! Go Reform!

Support for This Assumption: This is where you defend your position with facts and research. Constitutional references or case law would be appropriate and appreciated.

Try to refrain from insulting me, I'm asking a valid question that any educated proponent of reform should be able to ask.

I may be wrong, I may be right, anything is possible.

It's just a pointless debate between two opinions. Let's let the courts decide (in the Democrats favor of course ) and we can argue about that.

Btw, where in the conbstitution does it grant freedom of speech rights on the internet?

Where in the constitution does it grant rights to medical insurance?

Where in the constitution does it grant rights to military conscription?

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Where in the constitution does it grant rights to military conscription?

Sweet, then we are starting to agree, we need to burn the whole system down and get back to the basics. :9

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Where in the constitution does it grant rights to military conscription?

Sweet, then we are starting to agree, we need to burn the whole system down and get back to the basics. :9

Aren't Somalia, Sierra Leone and a couple other lawless countries "getting back to basics"?

Well, it seems the constitution worked just fine up until what, 9 years ago, so according to most we have a great foundation to start with unlike the countries you mention.