Virgina senate passes health care bill

[Cabin4]

Virgina senate passes health care freedon act bill. If put into law, this state legislation would render any national health care bill pwoer less in the state of Virgina. A good thing. Virgina sends a message to congress, stay out of state rights issues.

http://dailypaul.com/node/123568

[mirage1988]

Doesn't federal law trump state law? I'm just asking a question, not hijacking c4. We have a wolf problem in minnesota but the state is powerless to manage them because the feds put the wolves on the endangered list. How is this different?

[Oldshooter]

Hey I dont care if a state passes a medical care bill, even if they want one like obama and Dingy harry want.

Its just like the gay marriage thing IF an individual stae wants it so be it.  It is sad but its their state.

But actually Virginia is a day late and a dollar short with the "effort" National medical care is dead, at least until the election in November, but my instincts tell me after November a lot of the past years crap will be DOA!

[MGMorden]

Doesn't federal law trump state law? I'm just asking a question, not hijacking c4. We have a wolf problem in minnesota but the state is powerless to manage them because the feds put the wolves on the endangered list. How is this different?

It does.  It's a nice gesture by the state, but the reality is states can only make laws so long as they con't contradict federal ones.  Several states have enacted some legislation that declares national gun laws (can't remember which ones - I think mainly the '86 law banning civilian ownership of full autos made past that date), but it's always been declared invalid legislation.

It's a shame the civil war had to have the slavery issue at it's core.  That polarized a lot of people towards one side when the other big issue at hand in that war was whether or not the Feds were the supreme power or whether the States more or less ruled themselves with minimal Federal involvement.  I would have preferred to see the states retain the power to choose what's right and wrong within their borders - they just chose a piss-poor issue to finally make that stand over.

[dukkillr]

Doesn't federal law trump state law? I'm just asking a question, not hijacking c4. We have a wolf problem in minnesota but the state is powerless to manage them because the feds put the wolves on the endangered list. How is this different?

Bad example because the endangered species act is monitored by a complex set of administrative law.  But your idea is right.  Virginia is pissing in the wind... if national healthcare passes there will be a number of challenges from state's rights basis and from an individual constitutional basis... but what we are talking about here is purely ideological drivel to excite people who don't know any better. 

I do, however, think the Montana law restricting in state gun control is a more interesting and potentially successful line of reasoning...  Time will tell if a relatively conservative Supreme Court will take up such an issue...

[Cabin4]

Doesn't federal law trump state law? I'm just asking a question, not hijacking c4. We have a wolf problem in minnesota but the state is powerless to manage them because the feds put the wolves on the endangered list. How is this different?

The federal government has no powers enumerated to it other than that which is itemized in the constitution. All other powers are afforded to the states. Since the federal government can find no power under the constitution to mandate that American citizens buy anything, they are over reaching their power and that is unconstitutional. Section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the constitution has no provision for this level of power, reach and mandate of the federal government. Further, the Tenth amendment to the constitution reads as follows “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"

In the case of the endangered species act, there is no violation of personal/individual constitutional freedoms. However, in my opinion, the federal government has no real constitutional authority to mandate any state to follow these species acts. What the feds do is if a state violates federal law, they typically hold back on federal funding to that state. So most states fall in line since they need the money that was stolen from their residents by the federal government in the form of federal taxes to begin with.

To your question, the only differance is that the health care issue is a personal freedom issue were the species acts are just Washington jamming its stupid laws down the states throats but individual freedoms are not at stake.

[mirage1988]

It's too bad the two states that have resources enough to challenge the fed gov't (texas & alaska) don't have a governor with the cajone's to do it! (jesse would have)

[Slowhanddd]

Kansas is trying to get a bill like this going too.Hope it sticks.I can't afford insurance now.I'll be damned if i can afford the government telling me i have to have it.Hope I continue to be healthy.Slow

[mechanic]

Yeah, what Cabin 4 said.....+1.

[dukkillr]

You guys aren't listening.  It won't matter... these things are designed to score points with the ideological base.  THEY WILL NOT WORK.  The things Cabin said have been tested before the SCOTUS.  They didn't work.  Maybe you think they should, but they don't.  This is the difference between operating in the real world and in happy ideologue land.

[mechanic]

You guys aren't listening.  It won't matter... these things are designed to score points with the ideological base.  THEY WILL NOT WORK.  The things Cabin said have been tested before the SCOTUS.  They didn't work.  Maybe you think they should, but they don't.  This is the difference between operating in the real world and in happy ideologue land.

The reason they won't work is because we have all allowed the Feds to assume power they never had by law, and still don't.  It may be too late, but it's never too late to try.....

[dukkillr]

You guys aren't listening.  It won't matter... these things are designed to score points with the ideological base.  THEY WILL NOT WORK.  The things Cabin said have been tested before the SCOTUS.  They didn't work.  Maybe you think they should, but they don't.  This is the difference between operating in the real world and in happy ideologue land.

The reason they won't work is because we have all allowed the Feds to assume power they never had by law, and still don't.  It may be too late, but it's never too late to try.....

Well this is a reasonable explanation if you operate in happy ideologue land.  For the rest of us who prefer to operate in the real world, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.  They have spoken repeatedly on this issue.  Expansive use of the Commerce Clause is the end result, and why this will not work. 

[mechanic]

You guys aren't listening.  It won't matter... these things are designed to score points with the ideological base.  THEY WILL NOT WORK.  The things Cabin said have been tested before the SCOTUS.  They didn't work.  Maybe you think they should, but they don't.  This is the difference between operating in the real world and in happy ideologue land.
[/quote]
dukkillr

The reason it won't work is because no one will test it.  You and I have no argument, because I understand your position.  It is the same if you work at a company and  the boss passes a rule you strongly disagree with.  You have to suck it up or leave...but if everyone in the place disagrees, the boss has a problem.  Until enough people get fed up, the Fed's will grow more and more powerful.  Only if a majority of Americans say enough will it end.  It may be too late even  then.  I fear now we are on a road of no return.....

[billy_56081]

As often as I have to say I disagree with Dukk he is correct in this case and know well of what he talks. Federal law does suprcede state laws. Here in MN felons are alloowed to own firearms after there rights are restored. Felons are also allowed to vote and hold office after their rights are restored. Now by federal law it is illegal for felons to own firearms. Even after their rights are restored they cannot pass the NICS as they are prohibited by federal law. Now I agree and would like to see the power passed back to the states, but we have a long way to go before that happens.

[dukkillr]

If Billy and I are in agreement you guys have to assume that there is only one side to this issue...

[Dee]

Doesn't federal law trump state law? I'm just asking a question, not hijacking c4. We have a wolf problem in minnesota but the state is powerless to manage them because the feds put the wolves on the endangered list. How is this different?

Bad example because the endangered species act is monitored by a complex set of administrative law.  But your idea is right.  Virginia is pissing in the wind... if national healthcare passes there will be a number of challenges from state's rights basis and from an individual constitutional basis... but what we are talking about here is purely ideological drivel to excite people who don't know any better. 

I do, however, think the Montana law restricting in state gun control is a more interesting and potentially successful line of reasoning...  Time will tell if a relatively conservative Supreme Court will take up such an issue...

I agree with all said here, especially the Montana Law being a very interesting test on federal gun control laws.

[billy_56081]

I too would like to see where the Montana gun law goes. It looks like a good test of federal and state powers.

[Cabin4]

You guys aren't listening.  It won't matter... these things are designed to score points with the ideological base.  THEY WILL NOT WORK.  The things Cabin said have been tested before the SCOTUS.  They didn't work.  Maybe you think they should, but they don't.  This is the difference between operating in the real world and in happy ideologue land.

Show us were SCOTUS ruled that congress has the constitutional authority to mandate we buy health care insurance?

Now I never said in won't stand the test of the high court, I'm simply stating what my argument is. In additon, you say it only scores ideological points with the base for Virgina to pass this law. I disagree. It sends a clear message to congress, don't vote for the national health care bill. It's the only thing the states can do at this point. It also helps set the stage for a supreme court battle aganst national health care under the basis of states rights. SO none of this is just ideological points, its about the building blocks for the opposistion legal strategy should it pass and become law.

[Cabin4]

As often as I have to say I disagree with Dukk he is correct in this case and know well of what he talks. Federal law does suprcede state laws.

Not according to the laws of this land. Show me in the constitution.

[dukkillr]

As often as I have to say I disagree with Dukk he is correct in this case and know well of what he talks. Federal law does suprcede state laws.

Not according to the laws of this land. Show me in the constitution.

Article III Sections 1 & 2 plus Article I Section VIII Clause III.  Those two are the Constitutional basis for a whole freaking truck full of caselaw.  If you choose to ignore it that's fine, if you are merely uneducated on the subject PM me with your address and i'll mail you a Con Law book with the most important cases in it, provided you promise to send it back.

[Cabin4]

As often as I have to say I disagree with Dukk he is correct in this case and know well of what he talks. Federal law does suprcede state laws.

Not according to the laws of this land. Show me in the constitution.

Article III Sections 1 & 2 plus Article I Section VIII Clause III.  Those two are the Constitutional basis for a whole freaking truck full of caselaw.  If you choose to ignore it that's fine, if you are merely uneducated on the subject PM me with your address and i'll mail you a Con Law book with the most important cases in it, provided you promise to send it back.

I'm not ignoring anything. I apparenlty must have failed to make my point clear enough so far.

Your stating the legal case for those that would want national health care should the case go to court. I'm simply stating the case against it. Its not a slam dunk for either side. There's a good argument that will prevail in court should a national bill pass. Lets not forget, there has never been a federal law that forced a citizen to buy anything. So the basis is far more reaching and has 10th amendment implications, article 3 powers of congress as well as the simple premise of individual liberty & choice.