sabvre42 said:
No offense, but you are pretty ignorant in state vs federal. The guy you quoted is completely right. There is NO FEDERAL LAW on drinking age, seat belts, or speed limit. They were heavy handedly placed as requirements to receive federal road funding (so no the interstate commerce clause didn't apply).
Also, the national guard belongs to the governor and not the federal government. If a governor refused to commit his troops, there is no legal ramification. Again, they simply lose federal funding.
Following that precedent the ACA would be constitutional if they tied the requirement up to funding and let the states suffer if they didn't fall in line. |
No offense, but don't come into a conversation calling someone ignorant, especially if you have no grasp on what's being discussed.
What we were discussing, before random people started popping in to talk about other things, was whether or not forcing people to do something is inherently unconstitutional. The US constitution still applies at a state level, in accordance with article VI section 2 of the constitution. So, whether or not the law is enacted by the state or federal government is totally irrelevant in the context of this conversation. These examples (which were taken from the top of my head) show situations where the government compels people to do certain things, and the constitutionality of these laws have not been successfully challenged. Hence, forcing people to do things can be constitutional. I'm sure we could think of hundreds of situations where forcing people to do certain things is constitutional. Taxes are especially constitutional as per article 1 section 8 of the constitution.
And nobody discussed the national guard at all, so I don't know why you're talking about it at all.
So really, don't show up and call me ignorant when you have a complete lack of context as to what the original conversation was about. It's kind of rude.
