What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

Kasz216 said:

Except it doesn't... the bolded makes my point.

"It's unconstitutional, but we should allow it because it will help people."

Is what the bolded says... the fact that you had to qualify "gross" indicates you admit it is indeed a violation.

You just don't see it as a big one.

You are directly argueing that they should measure in how important the law is and rule that it's constiutional because of it.  Despite the fact that it is in fact... a violation.

 

So it's clearly unconsitutional, you just think they should close a blind eye to that fact.

The gross qualifier is because i am a "living document" supporter, believing that the spirit of the constitution should be obeyed and the letter thus re-interpreted as the times demand, because its the only way for the document to endure as it has in the past. Amendments only tell part of the story of how the constitution has remained valid down into days that the Founders could never have foreseen. In this case it is within the spirit of the document to allow this, even if it looks wrong on paper.

Which means you think the consitution should be changed with the times.

Which means you think things that were previously unconsitutional should be made constitutional with the times.

Which means you think judges should make things suddenly constituional that wasn't constiutiotnal when needed.

Which means my point completely stands that this is unconstituional, but you want it to be cosnitutional because you think it's needed now.

Which makes my point for me again.

 

Even though it clearly isn't something that's needed since there are other legislative measures out there that just aren't being used.  Again, just because congress might not want to try single payer healthcare coverage for "50 years" doesn't mean that's not a valid option for congress.

It's just oen they refuse to execute.

I'm just opposed to the "Constructionist" view of things, in that the document is only as strong as it is practically applicable, and the courts have a history of thinking that way, as with the World War I era sedition laws (which i'm not cool with, but still...). The WWI laws were clearly a violation of the letter of the first amendment, but less so with the spirit of it because of the increased role of propaganda and the potential for enemy spies and saboteurs that came with the early 20th century.