Constitution. This one is simple, folks. The federal government’s powers are limited and enumerated. State power is enumerated in state Constitutions.
This is about exactly how they are limited, which is not such a simple question.
That’s true, but the concept that a state can do many things the federal government cannot should be common knowledge. I shake my head when people wonder why states can mandate purchases but not the feds.
You make it easy.
Now, how about that apology, chum? Or did you not consult The Ethicist yet? As I asked earlier, I think you have confused me with another poster. Maybe Shodan who did opine that Obama lied through his teeth. But hey, don’t let that stop you from stomping your feet and making demands of people to defend positions they don’t hold. Never mind having a handle on the most basic of facts before you start challenging people in a discussion.
Yeah, you make it easy.
No U
Seriously, though. I’m not talking about Obama splitting hairs, I’m talking about you splitting them incorrectly. Your description of the administration’s argument is incorrect in a significant way, as I already described. Of course the lawyers split hairs, and that’s fine, but your splitting of hairs was not correct, as far as I know.
As for your not knowing what the administration actually argued, that’s perfectly acceptable. If you don’t know what they argued, though, don’t make what they argued part of your own arguments.
And at this point I think I’m done with this issue; I don’t want to spend all my time scolding you for a poor method of backing up your posts. Either you’ll bring more evidence next time or you won’t :).
There is none. Because 1) as mentioned, it’s the state doing it, not the federal government. 2) If you don’t want to buy car insurance, easy, don’t own a car. As tens of millions of people do not.
I deleted my response after seeing the mods had weighed in. I didn’t mean for you to see it after that.
You have an attitude problem. You should just have discussions and stop being so aggressive and indignant and angry.
While there are some people who simply don’t get that the state can do things the feds can’t, that’s not why this usually comes up. It’s because the arguments raised against Obamacare are not just that it’s unconstitutional, but that it’s bad public policy… until you bring up Massachusetts, when they just mumble and move on to constitutional arguments again.
Like I already said, I could be wrong. I’m just working from memory.
Again, I was careful to say I wasn’t sure, and welcome anyone telling me exactly what was said. In fact, that’s what I was asking for in the first place.
I haven’t made any claims that require evidence though. I’ve simply asked for others to back up their claims, and said what I recall while carefully qualifying it as a vague recollection, not a claim, inviting any corrections. Jeez.
If the last post was inappropriate, so is this one. Stop now.
My instructions to magellan01 apply to you, too. These sort of insulting comments don’t belong in this forum.
95% of households own a car. Livelihoods depend on owning one.
The state vs. federal distinction is a cop-out. Car insurance is compulsory in 47 states.
[QUOTE=LHOD]
Okay, here I’ll have to ask for a cite. Where did they argue in court that it was not a tax?
[/QUOTE]
Wait—aren’t you the one who claimed they they argued in court that it was not a tax? I think so. In fact:
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
As I recall, and I could be wrong, the administration argued in court that it is NOT a tax
[/QUOTE]
So if anyone is to provide a cite for your claim, it would be you. No? Who else would be “the one to ask” to support your claim.
I agree that conservatives are contradictory on Massachusetts, for obvious reasons.
My own view, since I’m not actually obligated to carry Romney’s water(I only do that for fun), is that Romneycare was a fine plan for Massachusetts and he should be proud of it. It also is a terrible idea nationally.
Here’s a little advice. When you see the words “As I recall, and I could be wrong,” it’s not a claim.
Calm down, back off, and just have a discussion about the issue without all the extraneous internet nonsense.
Heard this one before, too. Why? What’s special about Massachusetts?
That was a republican plan, this is a Democratic one. Therefore the first one is to be applauded, and the second one is pure evil.
Nope. I really don’t want to spend more time explaining the difference between powers granted to the federal government and those reserved for the states. This has been explained a hundred times. Multiple people have explained it in this very thread. You seem to not want to accept facts. Do a search. Or not.
As far your fantasy that livelihoods depend on owning a car, tell that to the millions of people living in NY and other large cities who do NOT own one.
Oh, out of curiosity, do you have a cite for your 95% claim?
I’m not going to go into why your approach to the argument is faulty any more; I think I’ve explained my thoughts adequately. I will ask you to take a moment to think about the fact that I, who agree with you on the substantive issues, think your debate technique of “I can’t recall and I could be wrong” is a very poor technique, and I hope that next time you’ll do a bit more research before posting. I mean this advice in the friendliest manner possible, and now I really am done with it. 
Focusing on the substance of the debate, do you then retract your claim that the administration argued in four that it was not a tax?
In 2001 it was 92.1%. Not sure how that’s changed since then.