Obamacare just committed suicide before the SCOTUS

Wouldn't a federally funded vaccine protect all citizens too? And the military is one of the worst culprits of taking disproportionately from the public trough. Ever lived in a city where they are thinking of closing a base? People lose their minds. And I get why they do that... they know the federal government is their cash cow.

 

Now we are getting like five people's arguments combined into one super argument. I'm just trying to justify Dad's position.

 

Active vs passive.

National defense is passive protection. The citizenry does not require that anything be done.

Mandated vaccination requires that the citizen be injected with something they may not want, and may not make a larger difference in the first place. I'm speaking of "herd immunity."

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

It seems to me taxes can serve the general public and "protect" them in ways that people don't want to acknowledge... I'm not threatened by TB like people in Russia are. I don't spend near the time worrying about clean water in the way that folks in Africa do.

And I did have to sign up for the selective service when I was 18, and if I didn't, the government wouldn't allow me to apply for FAFSA. And national defense clearly wasn't always passive here. In fact, it patently was not passive.

 

Selective service is not defense. In times of crisis, it may become defense, but that is not the norm. Further, you had to register in order to take part in a service. You were not required to utilize FAFSA, but in order to do so, you had to meet certain pre-requisites. One such requirement was selective service registration. The same applies to those entering public schools; they must meet certain vaccination requirements.

The idea that the government would inject everyone with a vax is more along the lines of requiring that every citizen serve in the military for 2-4 years. Not that they simply put their name on a lottery for some future service.

Equating the two would be akin to the Fed requiring that everyone sign up for the flu shot, in order to get aid, but not actually require that they get the shot in order to receive aid.

 

It is a crime not to sign up for selective service.

 

I'm not advocating forced immunization. It isn't even lawful, to my knowledge, and I hope my position didn't read that way.

And I am required by law to register for selective service, no?

 

Yup. Which is bullshit.

 

Yes.

 

I mistook the statement that a federally funded vax program would afford protection as implying required, forced vaccination.

To an extent, many vaccinations are Federally funded. That alone doesn't offer protection, as people still have to get the vaccine. But in the sense that it bolsters defense, yes, when people get vaccinated, it does.

But it isn't exactly on the same level.

 

Made me laugh...

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.


The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."


Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.


Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case - Crossroads - CBS News

 

3 page report? You think they will get ISS if they don't write it? Or just detention?


We need to bring back the paddle.

 

Kind of humorous that the one area where Obama actually has any sort of qualification is Constitutional law, and then he says stuff like this.

 

obama pulled the "reagan wouldnt' have gotten elected today" card when talking about the healthcare plan and romney (almost implied reagan would have been for obamacare which is laughable). reagan would win in a landslide. it's a ridiculous argument.

 

The Republican Core would not elect Reagan today it is a fact. Obama is playing chess while the mouth breathers continue to play checkers. Judge Jerry Smith was an active Republican at one time, are we surprised he made this political move? It is interesting that he and Judge Napy head are taking the position that they at one time thought so repulsive.

I have lost all respect for Republicans let them burn all of them [uck fay] them and may they go straight to hell.

 

romney is getting elected by the republican base and he has 1/100th of reagan's likability. how is he more conservative than reagan?

 

This does not sound like a very compassionate position.

 

Obama isn't playing chess if he thinks the SCOTUS tossing out a law they find unconstitutional is unprecedented. Best I can tell, there is a game of "cum biscuit" going on up on in our capital.

 

Actually IP it is chess. Economic Due Process decisions are almost unheard of...Lockner was the last time it was used and that case is considered bad law. Substantive Due Process regarding human rights etc has been used. It is the republicans who find those cases to be heresy. Here we are and it is like upside down cake. The Republicans are arguing for Lochner. In law circles this would be big very big and very much so unprecedented. Whether the law is authorized under the commerce clause is not at issue. That is settled law. The Heritage Foundation (Right Wing Group-tenth amendment types) in the paper it wrote on the issues conceded the court would have to curl back the law to rule this law is not authorized. The real and only issue with this law is the mandate. Substantive Due Process is often used in cases such as abortion or sexual rights. It has not been used since Lockner for economic concerns. If this court decided to open pandoras box and use Lochner chaos will reign in the courts. Suits will be filed in the thousands regarding other laws. This is the biggest decision of the modern era and yes it absolutely would be a radical decision. Obama is right on in his statement. It may end up being a positive thing if the court goes this way but to deny it is radical is cowardice by the courts.

 

I am I seriously to believe you were undecided 6 months ago? It sounds like have been of an opinion for President for a lot longer than a couple of months.