Or, more succinctly put: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Supreme Court does not agree that the ACA is nullified by that.
A conservative majority Supreme Court decided that I might note.
You don’t think “provide for the general welfare” covers health? What then does it cover? It doesn’t mean defense’ that is mentioned separately. Perhaps it covers what is more commonly called welfare now? I’m sure you object to that, too, don’t you?
I’m not saying it’s not legal. But why do you keep asking the same question as other posters? That’s their belief.
Ask why they think that recent Supreme Court decisions didn’t determine that it IS a federal issue. Don’t keep asking why they think States can do things the Federal Government can’t.
I just rated the current method more than twice as dishonest as the original. What are you looking for?
A minimum of 5X dishonesty multiplier.
Yes: a chief executive who makes “repeal and replace” a central part of his platform does NOT get elected.
Look, these are made up metrics, but they are HONEST made-up metrics; I compromise my arbitrary rating system for no man.
Are they going to support the states doing it? I’m guessing no.
**Bricker **already said he would support the states doing it.
I don’t live in California. I don’t really care what they do. You may call that “support” if you like. That is, I support their right to do stuff like that, however unworkable I consider it. Especially since I consider it the original (and, unfortunately, violated) purpose of the federal/state system that we have - that states get to experiment with things like that.
I wouldn’t support my state doing it, no.
Why not?
Might be helpful if you’d take the trouble to specify when you are differentiating between “proper role of government” per se, and “proper role of government [at level x].”
This seems to be a less than “lawyerly” answer.
I’m seriously asking what has shown that “public roads” are a federal issue. Like Federal gas tax. Were there any court cases or anything? (This is a serious question)
Perhaps you missed my basic claim. To repeat it: I don’t agree that Obamacare was wise public policy. See, e.g. post #1, #10, #36, and others.
I’m not claiming that the ACA unconstitutional, or nullified, or illegitimate. I claim that in my opinion, there is a wise role for federal government and that this role does not include paying for everyone’s health care.
I also thought this. If someone is referring to the Federal Government, it should be stated explicitly.
Roads are built by states with the federal government’s involvement limited to its spending power.
You’re missing my point (and Irruncible’s).
I’ll leave it to you to figure out where you lost the plot…
Fair point, although I thought it was made clear by context from the beginning, and explicitly by post #71.
Why do you ask that? I don’t think the “conservatives” are asking them to.