tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post1446124801101933309..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-56172275597151250702009-11-25T05:24:48.527-06:002009-11-25T05:24:48.527-06:00Auto insurance is required IF you drive a auto (no...Auto insurance is required IF you drive a auto (not required). Health insurance is required of everyone (no choice).<br />Kind of like participation in the farm program isn't required to farm but if it were it might be unconstitutional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-3793398171433595822009-11-17T18:21:05.273-06:002009-11-17T18:21:05.273-06:00VA:
I see your point. But even state laws can be ...VA:<br /><br />I see your point. But even state laws can be challenged as unconstitutional. Simply originating in state legislatures does not exempt them from federal judicial scrutiny.<br /><br />Of course most of these deviations are caught by state supreme court challenges, as state constitutions cannot supersede the US Constitution.<br /><br />brandon:<br /><br />Your point as well is well taken. this is why I oppose even seemingly benign use of mandates. as well as being bad economics they make the next mandate easier.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-60363911824041251592009-11-17T16:49:03.080-06:002009-11-17T16:49:03.080-06:00the mandate for purchase of auto insurance is from...the mandate for purchase of auto insurance is from state governments, consistent with the 10th amendment. Having said that, Congress has stretched the Commerce Clause to claim federal jurisdiction over many things not contemplated when the 10th amendment was drafted.From Virginianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-78835039514098101822009-11-16T20:43:13.432-06:002009-11-16T20:43:13.432-06:00If this mandate to buy insurance is passed and det...If this mandate to buy insurance is passed and determined to be constitutional, then of course other 'mandates' will be needed. <br /><br />Like a mandate forbidding you (by imposing high taxes) from eating unhealthy food, high fructose corn syrup, or excess drink. <br /><br />Mandates to maintain less body weight or lower blood pressure, or not have babies late in life. <br /><br />Mandates forbidding certain hobbies like hang gliding, or kayaking, or the rodeo. <br /><br />All of these enjoyable things could be considered too high of risk, and therefore adds costs to the whole citizenry. Tax it to stop it! <br /><br />I'm still not understanding the argument: "well the government has always done stupid things, and plays fast and loose with the constitution, so we might as well keep letting them do it."Brandonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-3887643757682218512009-11-16T11:10:37.764-06:002009-11-16T11:10:37.764-06:00Nope, that(mandated health insurance) would not be...Nope, that(mandated health insurance) would not be unconstitutional. There are so many other instances that are similar that are 'constitutional'. On the other hand, if it should actually be unconstitutional (ie in reality). The question will never come before the Supreme Court. Who is going to sue so the question can be asked? The insurance companies won't, nor will the GOP, likewise the Dems. I sure can't afford to sue, so hardly anyone is left! Perhaps AARP? Or ACLU? Not too likely...so it must be 'constitutional'.buffalobillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05832548685655654659noreply@blogger.com