... because if the government can force you to buy health care, it can force you to buy anything. Having a deal now where the government chooses to restrict this power over you to health care is no guarantee that the deal won't be altered in the future. Sort of like this.
"... because if the government can force you to buy health care, it can force you to buy anything."
ReplyDelete... you mean like auto insurance, bike helmets, educating children, clean water and sanitation, fluoridated water, ... This train left the station long long ago.
Apples and oragnes. Some of those are government services. Had this been the public option, that would have been a different story. The other examples you use all require you to do something in order to activate the requirement. In the case of ObamaCare, all you need do is exist.
ReplyDeleteResigned are we, Kelly?
ReplyDeleteKT, THAT was freaking hysterical. Link forthcoming.
Kelly,
ReplyDeleteMost of the time I agree with your assessments and find many of your comments to be humorous (in the good sense).
On this one, I must protest. As for auto insurance, the guv'ment does not force you to buy a car (yet). Nor do they force you ride a bike, utilize municipal water/sewer systems, and you have the option of home schooling your children.
I'm hoping you intended your comment to be sarcasm and I just missed it.....
An idle question: does your apparent approval of the judges decision mean that you no longer think that "Any constitutional republic that allows a single individual to override the lawfully enacted will of the people is not serious about being a republic"?
ReplyDeleteJust asking.
Tim, I think I'm being reasonably consistent. In the link you give, the voters passed a law banning gay marriage. There is no way to find gay marriage in the constitution. It hasn't been there for over 200 years and it's not magically there now. Dittos for this. America is based on limited government, not unlimited government.
ReplyDeleteKT: My point is this:
ReplyDeleteThe legal principle in question is that it is part of the judge's job to make decisions on whether or not a law is constitutional, and that what the judicial system ultimately decides is final.
In the Obamacare case, you are accepting that it is the judge's job to make a constitutionality decision.
In the Proposition 8 case, you were evidently rejecting that it is the judge's job to make a constitutionality decision.
The only grounds I could see for the change in position was that in one case you agree with what he decided, and in the other case you don't.
Just to be perfectly clear: I am not arguing that you should agree or disagree with either judge's specific decision. I am arguing that any insinuations that it is not their job to make the decisions are incorrect, and ultimately far more dangerous to the Republic than any specific decision that the judges may make.