Antonin Scalia dead at 79.

[JWeinCom]

thranx said:

JWeinCom said:

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.

What he is stating is not in the context of this conversation, because this conversation is not about which rights are delegated to the states or the federal government.  The conversation was about WHETHER IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. If the state can enforce a speed limit, then enforcing a speed limit is constitutional.  

Being a state law doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be constitutional.  So, when I said it is constitutional to force people to drive a certain speed limit, that is absolutely correct.  If you think it's not constitutional, then please sue the state for acting unconstitutionally next time you get a speeding ticket, and see how that goes..  I never ever ever stated that the federal government has the power to enforce speed limits.  Yet people are talking down to me as though I did. I was just giving examples of the government constitutionally forcing people to do things, with examples from different levels of government.  For fuck's sake people, learn to read.