This changes the importance of the american election by orders of magnitude.

It's not only about electing a president willing to end legalized bribery, but also about making sure that the nominee is on the right side of that issue as well.

The federal constitution governs federal rights. A state constitution is in addition to federal rights. If something is unconstitutional at a federal level, it can still be constitutional at a state.

You were making a strawman argument.

You know that its impossible to repeal ACA with Obama in the White House.  So, rationally, they should stop waisting time and money on the issue until such a time that it isn't completely futile.  I don't want the senate waising time on nonsense.  They work for us and we pay them.   You don't pay people to purposely waist your time.  The whole exercise is crazy. 

No, I was not... maybe if you read the original post you'd know that?

The post was about whether or not it is constitutional to force people to do things.  I said it was, and provided a few examples.  I never mentioned anything about the federal government or the state, nor did the original post I was replying to.  So I really don't know why people outside the conversation started bringing that into it.

And yes, the constitution does govern state rights.  This is the supremacy clause of the constituition.  Article VI section 2 I think.  A state cannot limit your free speech, perform an illegal search and seizure, or make discriminatory laws.  A state cannot put something in its state constitution that is not in compliance with the federal constitution.  So, if a state can force people to take certain actions, then it is constitutional to force people to take certain actions.  Plus I also gave examples from a federal level as well. It's not a strawman argument, it's basic logic. 

If you think that it is unconstitutional for government to force you to wear clothes, wear a seatbelt, or drive a certain speed limit, then please go out naked and drive 140 miles per hour without a seatbelt.

Plus, I gave examples where the goverment can at a federal level force you to do certain things (income tax, drafting) and gave a specific part of the constitution that allows for taxing for common welfare (article one section 8).  So I have no idea why you're harping on one example you didn't like.  

Thats how you may be reading it. When I talk about the constition and federal government, thats exaclty what i mean. If I am talking about state and local government  i would say so. When somoen say it unconstitional i also would assume they mean the federal constitution. As far as this thread was going everyone else seems to be talking about the federal government. Not state or local. So again I say its on point. The supreme court is a federal thing, not state. peeding tickets are state not federal. Again it seems like you dont know what you want to say. Many peoplle are against the federal health care act, but not against state health care. Fed vs state rights. When most people say constition with out mention what state I would assume they mean federal. Have you ever been given a speeding ticket from a federal agency? like the FBI, DEA, DHS? no, because they cant. But you can get speeding tickets from local and state officers. its like compariing apples and oranges. federal and state. There is no federal speeding law. You seem very confused on what the US constition allows vs what ststae laws and constitioon allow. Pleasse read up on it.

You provided examples of state laws, not federal. please figure out the difference. The consitution only allows the feds control over certain things. Everything else is left up to the state governments. two seperate entities with different rules (51 different sets of rules, more if you count US territores)

If you read the constitioin those are both covered in the constition. But the other stuff you mentioned isnt. that is the difference.

You see, here's the thing.  You weren't involved in the conversation.  Both I and the person I was talking to knew exactly what I was talking about.  If people outside the conversation didn't know, then I don't give a shit.  It's not my obligation to make sure everybody in the world understands every conversation I'm having.  As long as I and the person I was talking to understood eachother, anyone else can either fuck off, or ask for clarification if they're really that interested.  I seriously don't know why you feel the need to jump into a conversation you have no part in to tell me I'm being unclear.  I'm sorry my post didn't meet your standards.  Next time, I'll consult with you before using any terminology to ensure my usage matches up with yours -_-...  

If when "somoen" says unconstitutional, you assume that it's referring to the federal government, that's your problem.  Don't assume something then tell me I don't know what I want to say.  I wanted to say it's constitutional to force people to drive a certain speed.  And that's what I said.  I didn't want to say it was a federal law, so I didn't say it.  So, how about instead of assuming, you ask if you're unclear of something?  You know what they say.  When you assume you make an "ass" of "u"........  

And by this time, I've clarified the point about 10 times.  So how can you still be in any way confused about that? .   So... you're going to jump into a conversation you weren't a part of, assume a meaning I never said, and then when I clarify you're going to say "nope, I assumed you meant that, so that's what you meant".  Lulz.

And no, I am not confused, you are.   The constitution of the united states applies to every court of America at every level.  It governs both the states and the federal government in accordance with the supremacy clause.  That means at the "ststae" level and the federal level and every law passed anywhere cannot violate the constitution.  So if a state wants to pass a law regarding the speed limit that law has to be *gasp* constitutional.  The constitution applies to states, and even municipalities.  That's why we have cases like New York v Quarles, California v Greenwood, Tennessee v scopes, or Brown vs Board of Ed of Topeka Kansas.  Because the constitution applies to states and municipalities, and even to smaller parts of a city like the board of ed.  

Can you please point out where I've said there is a federal speeding law?  If you're saying I seem confused about "what the US constition allows vs what ststae laws and constitioon allow", then please explain what I said that was wrong.  Can you show me somewhere that I said a federal right was a state's right, or vice versa?

Just to save you some time, I'm going to answer that question for you.  The answer is no, because I didn't.

I didn't give examples of federal laws?  So... New York State could draft me into the army?  And the federal government can't collect income tax?  Good to know!!! I guess I really didn't know the difference.  Better consult my "constitioin" to figure it out XD

Yes, I gave examples of state laws.  Where exactly did I claim a state law was a federal law or vice versa?  If I did please point it out to me.   Reading is fundamental man.

And why shouldn't I give state laws as an example?  State laws have to be constitutional, just like federal laws.  And that's what we were discussing.  Whether or not it is constitutional to compel people to do certain things.  We were not talking about federal vs states rights, the person I was originally talking to didn't say anything about it, yet here you are coming into the conversation and going on and on about that O_o... 

My point was the government can constitutionally force people to take certain actions. I gave examples of both federal and state laws because the constitution applies to both the federal and state government.  I gave state examples, and federal examples, and pointed you to the exact part of the constitution that says the government can force people to pay taxes.  What exactly are you trying to argue here?  That I'm totally right, but that some of my examples were on a state level?  Well then keep fighting the good fight man.

Seriously, what are you trying to prove?  What is your endgame here?

And I haven't read the constitioin or the constition.  Maybe once I read them I'll have a better understanding of what you're talking about. :)

Plus, make no mistake, this would put the Supreme Court at an even split (4-4) for not only the rest of this session, but the entire next session.  Scalia's votes as of his death on any case before the Supreme Court that hasn't yet been revealed to the public, is now null and void.  So, as it stands, we're talking a 4-4 split, which doesn't nullify anything, it merely refers the case back to the lower court ruling.

This country has many issues, that are constantly in need of SCOTUS review, to have an evenly split SCOTUS for such a length of time would be quite bad.

How is there a discussion on the constitutionality of the ACA without any real mention of the courts majority opinion?

Simply put, the penalty for not having health insurance that complies with the AMA is a tax. It's calculated using things like taxable income, number of dependents, it is paid when you file your federal tax return, it's collected by the IRS, and (most importantly) it raises revenue for the government.

Therefore, it falls under article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

On a different topic, the Supreme Court is far too important to leave crippled for an entire year.