States' Rights advocates on a roll these days

...The Tenth Amendment champions aren't raising a new issue of constitutional law. ....

In Gonzales v Oregon, which concerned that state’s assisted-suicide law, the government argued that doctors who prescribe lethal doses of medication violate federal law. The Supreme Court rejected that, believing it would constitute “a radical shift of authority from states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality.” Second, the Supreme Court has recognised a right to medical self-determination, notably finding it within the Fifth Amendment’s due-process clause. An individual mandate could violate that right by restricting choices of doctors or procedures. The last and strongest argument concerns the government’s power to require the purchase of health insurance under the commerce clause....If the Supreme Court finds in favour of any one of these three arguments, the state laws become irrelevant; the individual mandate will have been invalidated at the federal level.....

Thomas wrote:

...The Tenth Amendment champions aren't raising a new issue of constitutional law. ....

You are mistaken, not only because long before Calhoun there was Jefferson, but more importantly because the Supreme Court has ruled in this direction in several recent cases. Of course that proposed "health care" legislation is unconstitutional - in addition to bringing the country one step closer to defaulting on the debt. To supporters of the "Conyers doctrine" (see above posts on the previous page from and to PlainOldMe) neither the constitution nor national bankruptcy mean anything so I'm not going to bother with that poster, but I thought you and Joe cared about such things

Calhoun there was Jefferson, but more importantly because the Supreme Court has ruled in this direction in several recent cases.

Of course that proposed "health care" legislation is unconstitutional

in addition to bringing the country one step closer to defaulting on the debt.

The last and strongest argument concerns the government’s power to require the purchase of health insurance under the commerce clause. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service found this the most challenging constitutional question related to health-care reform, as the commerce clause, the clause in the constitution that allows the federal government to regulate trade between the states, has never before been used to require that citizens buy a good or service.

In the interest of brevity may I refer you as well to link re-posted as a courtesy to Joe - and btw for the slow readers among us (not to mention Conyers-doctrine fanatics) here's another excerpt from said link:

Quote:

The last and strongest argument concerns the government’s power to require the purchase of health insurance under the commerce clause. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service found this the most challenging constitutional question related to health-care reform, as the commerce clause, the clause in the constitution that allows the federal government to regulate trade between the states, has never before been used to require that citizens buy a good or service.

Perhaps you and Thomas failed to notice a link, posted right next to the excerpt, citing no fewer than 3 (three) major constitutional problems with the proposed bill?

Technically this is untrue. All citizens are required to purchase Medicare insurance and Social Security insurance. In fact, it's taken right from one's paycheck by the Feds - you can't, to my knowledge, opt out of it. How is this any different?

Perhaps you and Thomas failed to notice a link, posted right next to the excerpt, citing no fewer than 3 (three) major constitutional problems with the proposed bill? If so, here's the link (to the latest issue of The Economist) again:
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15721539&source=hptextfeature

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Technically this is untrue. All citizens are required to purchase Medicare insurance and Social Security insurance. In fact, it's taken right from one's paycheck by the Feds - you can't, to my knowledge, opt out of it. How is this any different?

FICA is a tax -- it's not a forced premium for insurance or payment for an annuity, and no one has a vested right in social security benefits. Likewise, Medicare is not an insurance policy -- it's a federal program that is funded by taxes, not premiums.....

Program Notes
This wake-up-call doc exposes the hidden history of our country's redistricting wars, mapping battles that take place out of public scrutiny but that shape the electoral landscape of American politics for decades at time, posing a threat not just to democrats and republicans, but democracy as a whole. Featuring stories from nine states, Gerrymandering takes a hard look at the framework of our democracy and how it provides our politicians a perfectly legal way to control electoral outcomes.

Quote:

..But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

[/b]
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
> can somehow be sidestepped by the "deem" abomination peddled by Speaker Pelosi.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

Thank you for eliminating this inane interlude by Cycl. On what you call 3 constitutional "quibbles": they may or may not be insuperable impediments for this latest Democrat power grab, even if the minor matter of Article 1 Section 7 >
[quote]..But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

> can somehow be sidestepped by the "deem" abomination peddled by Speaker Pelosi. You have however underestimated the force of the popular upswell against Obamacare's grotesque budgetary and political power grab - see also on this thread the "Conyers-doctrine" looming catastrophe. Unlike Cycl, Thomas, PlainOldMe and suchlike echo chambers, you, Joe, understand the stakes, so I'll give you a clue:
http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/gerrymandering-film30790.html

Quote:

Program Notes
This wake-up-call doc exposes the hidden history of our country's redistricting wars, mapping battles that take place out of public scrutiny but that shape the electoral landscape of American politics for decades at time, posing a threat not just to democrats and republicans, but democracy as a whole. Featuring stories from nine states, Gerrymandering takes a hard look at the framework of our democracy and how it provides our politicians a perfectly legal way to control electoral outcomes.

[img]http://media.tribecafilm.com/images/GERRYMANDERING_2-

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.