States may be able to Opt-out

You are right Rebel Yell, anyone who knows the Constituion knows that the Federal Government has limited powers. They are defined and all else is for the states. And no where does it say anyone has the right to healthcare or anything else from the federal government. The Constitution proclaims equal rights but now equal things. Health Care is a "thing".

Viking is making an equal protection argument. The 14th amendment established a concept of national citizenship which Congress has been charged with protecting by the states through the amendment process. Each time the constitution has been amended it has resulted in a redefinition of the other amendments. One of the net effects of the 14th amendment was a redefinition of relationships between the states and the federal government leading to a primacy of federal authority.

Congress also has the authority to regulate interstate congress through the commerce clause. (IOW the insurance industry can be regulated by congress to mandate consistent benefit sets)....

There are 2 separate issues. 1. Consistent benefit sets and 2. State participation in a public option. Sending the issue of the public option to the states with an opt out option through legislation arguably answers any possible 10th amendment challenges.

The term argument is simply that. It has become an argument of many of this new generation of socialists to use as a reason to support a more world view of total acceptance and protections.
The 14th does not give, by any interpretation of any one or whole of words with in the first sentence. In fact, the words that are interpreted by law and under the Supreme Court, have not been changed to what their original meaning was! The words, "born or naturalized, United States, jurisdiction thereof", have with stood the meaning of time. The 2nd sentence of, even though argued, has been upheld to support the rights under the Bill Of Rights. No where, does it nor has it been read to give rights beyond born or individuals who become citizens through the passages established through immigration laws. The argument of a National citizenship, is a concept, and argument, not a fact under the 14th. Now, it is a fact that, originally, the Federal and State governments could and can co-op, at which point, the Federal Government becomes the primary legal authority.
Though, in these times, we see that more often through grant, funding agreements, which come with extensive legal requirements, an example would be Sanction cities. Once a city accepts that standing, they follow supporting law, written by the house and attached and then put UNDER the Constitution to support the funding, and those laws are known to not override, but can interfere with the laws IN the Constitution and open a case of litigation, if so challenged.
Article 1, section 8. Yes, through a series of Code of Law, UNDER the Constitution, Congress can now do many things! But, they have not as yet, Amended the Constitution to provide, give or support all the physical elements demanded by the Citizens, in fact, Congress refers the Citizens to their Bill Of Rights, thus, they cannot lay claim of provision until such time they AMEND the CONSTITUION to provide so.
Yes, they can, as they have and are doing, lay code of law , attached to the bill, voted on, lay it under the Constitution and maintain that law, until it is argued in a Court of Law. Code of law is and are the laws you argue here and they are only supported because they tend not to be challenged, although, by ruling, they are the laws which through Congress, can be petitioned and challenged at ANY level of a standing Court. And, unless they have defined attaching structure to PROTECT the area of the Constitution or its supporting Amendment, those laws can have very weak grounds under examination. Again, one world Socialist love to use concepts to change with out regard to out come of what the change may bring.

Since I am not a lawyer, I had my friend write the above. As far as I am concerned, this is an infringement on State freedoms, and moreover, freedoms of all the States. It is inarguable that this Health Care legislation will increase our debt, and increase our taxes. Again, I refer to the Founding Fathers, and the papers they wrote, in order to reestablish what the United States is supposed to represent, and what the Constitution & Bill of Rights was intended to do.

Thomas Jefferson: "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." and "...we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority."

The Founders quarreled amongst themselves, but they had fundamental principles, of which you can learn by reading the papers. What I see occuring, is the desicration of these fundamental beliefs, and this is where we differ. There are many facets of government structures, but none in the world such as ours. And we are bit by bit losing everything that was fought for and about by our Founders of this country. We are supposed to be a Republic. And by definition, the way we are headed is not leaving the options to the people.

Not to parse sentences here but the order of clauses do mean something:

There is almost zero doubt that the authors of the 14th amendment were establishing a concept of national citizenship and primacy of federal citizenship over state citizenship. Your friends argument doesn't hold water given the order of the clause. Section 1 clearl gives citizens due process protections AND prohibits the individual states from abridging privileges of individual citizens.

If congress through legislation defines access to affordable health care as a civil/constitutional right the states must honor it. With the passage of the 14th amendment the states gave congress the authority/responsibility to protect the rights of citizens. this altered fundamentally the understanding of the 10th amendment as the states ceded this authority to the federal government.

The courts have:

but with the demise of liberty of contract came a general broadening of “liberty” to include personal, political and social rights and privileges.74 Nonetheless, the Court is generally chary of expanding the concept absent statutorily recognized rights.75

The federalist papers are not obsolete but there has been an expansion and change in the understanding of both liberty and civil rights over the past 150 years.

The annotations are well worth reading....



Insurance .--The general relations of those engaged in the insurance business 37 as well as the business itself have been peculiarly subject to supervision and control. 38 Even during the Lochner era the Court recognized that government may fix insurance rates and regulate the compensation of insurance agents, 39 and over the years the Court has upheld a wide variety of regulation.

With all due respect, sir, regardless of what you may infer, as I don't understand legaleze, but I do understand LIBERTY, FREEDOM, PROPERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. And what is and has been done over the years, has eroded our country and the consitution and EVERYTHING it is supposed to stand for. There cannot be any argument in that. The proof is there. You can argue law all you want, but the PRINCIPLES remain the same, and they are simple enough for me to understand. This is what people are rising up to protect.

There is NO country in the world with a government like ours, and we are on the cusp of losing it. I cannot sit idlly by and let that happen. I have children. This is not the legacy I want to hand them. Debt beyond comprehensible numbers, with an interest rate that we cannot pay. Laws and regulations that strangle the very essence of what made our country strong. Yes, it is time for change.

However, I believe in the free market. I don't want to see that change. Corruption takes hold whenever there is power to be had. I believe, as I heard someone say that "It is not bad to want money, but it is bad to love money that harbors greed". I believe in the good and generosity of the American people. I believe in allowing for the innovation that drives better living standards, and allowing the people that invent to reap the benefits (note, not rape, but reap) of their toil.

I believe in small government. The very basis of the Republic, "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them." (Definition from Webster's dictionary). Is that where we are now? Is that where we are heading? I am against a one world government. Where is this Copenhagen treat really taking us? And if that is where we are going, then we are extinct as a Republic.

I also believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not to be meddled with. The very essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. That is not what we have now. Power corrupts. Money corrupts. If we restore ourselves to the principles this country was founded on, and RESPECT the constitution, we may save ourselves.

But, that is yet to be seen. I think we will find out soon enough. And in getting back to the topic of this thread, that is where it all starts. It starts small, then gets bigger. And before we know/knew it, the freedoms are gone.

So, I choose to follow the saying "I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees". May God bless what is left of our American republic and all the liberty she stands for. And with that, I stand down.

I re-read "Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the CONSTITUTION, nor prohibited by it TO THE STATES respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE." The power is to reside in the people. Proposed legislation is taking this away. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should help guide the causes and purpose of our laws.

Thomas Jefferson wrote "On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed ou of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it passed." He was one of the AUTHORS, you cannot mistake his intent.

It is SOCIALISM, no matter HOW you slice it.

As I said, it has been happening over the YEARS. And FDR (President in 1941) was a Socialist. He made a huge dent in the Constitution, damaging it. Social Security, FLSA were some of those damages, creating a dependent society, much like welfare, etc. (ie socialism where the government controls the production and distribution of goods and services, and to go further:"Communism – 1. A social system characterized by the common ownership of the means of production and subsistence and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2.a. A system of government in which the state controls the means of production and a single, often authoritarian party holds power with the intention of establishing a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." Is this where we are headed????? I certainly hope not.

FDR also tried to re-write the Bill of Rights.

I DISAGREE whole-heartedly with that law professor. Just because he says it, it doesn't make it right. The Constitution was to be a foundation, not a fluid document to be changed by the whims of men. Again, we must refer back to the principles of the founders. The more we drift away from those, the deeper trouble we get in maintaining our freedoms.

AGAIN: Thomas Jefferson wrote "On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it passed." He was one of the AUTHORS, you cannot mistake his intent.

It is NOT constitutional to take from one to give to another. Those who interpret the constitution to mean equal things for all people....can do so misguidedly, yet that still does not give anyone the right to mandate that others do something so that another group of people can have something else. If you want to give the small portion of people healthcare insurance that is one thing but to mandate everyone elses is quite something else. I agree with neither. But this madness needs to stop.
We all knwo that this healthcare debate is not about the people it is about power and control. there are other ways to cover the people. I can tell you I can not name a single person who has been denied access to treatment.
Much of this is due to some people just not accessing or not knowing how to access theri pcp listed on their mdcd card. I also did social work , working with young mothers, following their baby for 5 years one of the goals was to make sure all of teh children had 100% immunization rate. We provided transportation and assistance in completing forms and still...there were those who when I went to pick them up for theri appointment they refused to go...saying they just didnt feel like it that day. We will always have these types of people among us. For the government to think that they can force everyone to do something is not only impossible but way beyond their authority. What would you think had I put a stronghold on these young mothers and ok then I am going to fine you or I am going to take some other privileges from you. That would not have been right and it is not right for the govt to take away my choice to choose to have healthcare or not.