Antonin Scalia dead at 79.

[thranx]

JWeinCom said:

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.

The federal government forcing people to do these things is unconstitoinal. Thats why the feds force states to enact the laws on their behalf through the use of freeway funding. Its a loophole that has been abused far too long. Each state has its own constitution that will allow or not allow certain things. But the constitiion is pretty clear, if it isnt written in the constitioon the power falls to the state. Healthcare should not be on a federal level but a state level. Its also why the supreme court decided that it was a tax.  What he is saying is in the context of your argument. You just dont seem to know how some laws work and how the federal government has used its heavy hand to force state and local governments to do what the fed is not allowed to. It all comes down to states rights vs federal.