Obamacare: According to James Madison American government is illegitimate

[Galileo]

Obamacare: According to James Madison American government is illegitimate (EXCELLENT ARTICLE)

As you no doubt are aware, Chief Justice John Roberts used tortured logic and precedent to rule in favor of Obamacare but what you may not know is specifically how he justified his decision, and I’m not talking about a penalty versus a tax. And what Chief Justice Roberts did is exactly about which James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, warned.

READ EXCELLENT ARTICLE HERE:

http://stevebussey.com/wp/2012/07/obamacare-according-to-james-madison-american-government-is-illegitimate/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And then there was Marbury v Madison. Thomas Jefferson probably would have also freaked out but John Adams, George Washington and of course John Marshall who ruled against Madison in the landmark case regarding judicial review would not have.

It also wasn't convoluted logic at all. If you understand the standard of review concerning laws and the constitution its not all that hard to figure out. People are just stupid.

[Galileo]

And then there was Marbury v Madison. Thomas Jefferson probably would have also freaked out but John Adams, George Washington and of course John Marshall who ruled against Madison in the landmark case regarding judicial review would not have.

It also wasn't convoluted logic at all. If you understand the standard of review concerning laws and the constitution its not all that hard to figure out. People are just stupid.

James Madison won the case Marbury vs Madison. Marbury lost.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

James Madison won the case Marbury vs Madison. Marbury lost.

You are right. I just assumed that you made an argument that made sense.

So Madison argued for and won the case that is the defining moment for the notion of judicial review.

Your article says Madison would not like what Roberts, Sotamayor, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Breyer did but he argued for and won the case defining how judicial review works in regards to constitutionality.


Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

All you did is discredit your arguments BS. Gratz!

[Galileo]

You are right. I just assumed that you made an argument that made sense.

So Madison argued for and won the case that is the defining moment for the notion of judicial review.

Your article says Madison would not like what Roberts, Sotamayor, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Breyer did but he argued for and won the case defining how judicial review works in regards to constitutionality.



All you did is discredit your arguments BS. Gratz!

Madison did not argue the case. Madison was the defendant in the case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Madison did not argue the case. Madison was the defendant in the case.

Does the defense have a case? There are two sides of the argument, Madison's side won and judicial review was born. Your article is at best misleading but from you that is not particularly surprising.

[DMX7]

According to Bobby Jindal, it's Obamney Care!

[Galileo]

Does the defense have a case? There are two sides of the argument, Madison's side won and judicial review was born. Your article is at best misleading but from you that is not particularly surprising.

Judicial Review is an obvious implication of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Both Madison and John Marshall agreed with that.

This article is not a debate about judicial review, it is about how obamacare is unconstitutional and James Madison would have opposed it on both Constitutional and policy grounds.

This article is NOT about Thomas Jefferson's knee-jerk opposition to judicial review.

I said the article was excellent, I never said the poorly worded TITLE of the article was well written.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Judicial Review is an obvious implication of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Both Madison and John Marshall agreed with that.

This article is not a debate about judicial review, it is about how obamacare is unconstitutional and James Madison would have opposed it on both Constitutional and policy grounds.

This article is NOT about Thomas Jefferson's knee-jerk opposition to judicial review.

I said the article was excellent, I never said the poorly worded TITLE of the article was well written.

Umm the ruling limited the necessary and proper clause.

And I really fail to see how using the principle of honoring the constitutional interpretations of previous courts in any way as an encroachment.

An encroachment is the advance beyond the usual limits. Now how in the hell is using previous ruling anything but previously established limits? Its not constructionism. Even that bullshit that was bolded om the article was a quote that was cited.

And which part of the states administering medicaid expansion, establishing regulatory standards, retaining insurance from the private sector or anything else making "the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare?"

That is complete and utter horseshit.

Madison supported the notion of absolute inflexible interpretation of the constitution. Adams, Jefferson, Randolph, and Marshall did not. Oh well.

If you want to complain about the dismantling of federalism will the 1980s called and want their argument back.

Even the argument about open ended taxes argument is crap. The turn of the 20th century called and wants its argument back. 16th amendment, look it up. They amended the constitution to levy taxes on the basis of income.

Now I would also like for you to point out which portion of the Constitution puts a timetable on taxation whatever Madison may or may not have wanted.

The only thing that is even slightly specious is saying that in reference to the constitution the word choice does not trump what the statute actually does while saying in respect to other laws it is as is written. But even that has centuries of precedent. if congress wants to write legislation than the wording corresponds to other laws as they all wrote it within themselves then fine. OTOH, when reviewing it on terms of the governing document ie the Constitution then you look to what the law actually does rather than what it is called.

If that was not the case then for example congress could write a ban on women's suffrage as 'happy nondiscrimination time that denies or abridges nothing' and then go to the court saying it says right here its not discriminatory so it doesn't violate the 19th amendment.


The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as thestatute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors astaxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement topay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assessand collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billionper year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Paymentsof Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in SelectedCBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation,2009–2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010). It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewedas an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to anyparticular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

That is the reasoning of why its a tax.

1) its paid to the treasury
2) its filed with your tax return
3) it doesn't apply to those that are below the taxable threshold
4) its amount is determined by taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status.
5) its written into the tax code
6) its collected and enforced by the IRS
7) its in the statute that it's supposed to be "collected in the same manner as taxes."
8) it produces money for the government

The salient portion is bolded.

Its interesting to note that all of those that call it unconstitutional never seem to quote the above.

i mean hell i am looking in that article for some portion that makes an argument for it being unconstitutional. I see the gratuitous comparison to Jim Crow but I am looking for the argument on constitutional grounds. the tax clause is very easy to understand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is conceded that a federal excise tax does not cease to be valid merely because it discourages or deters the activities taxed. Nor is the tax invalid because the revenue obtained is negligible. Appellee, however, argues that the sole purpose of the statute is to penalize only illegal gambling in the states through the guise of a tax measure. As with the above excise taxes which we have held to be valid, the instant tax has a regulatory effect. But regardless of its regulatory effect, the wagering tax produces revenue. As such it surpasses both the narcotics and firearms taxes which we have found valid. 4


Nor do we find the registration requirements of the wagering tax offensive. All that is required is the filing of names, addresses, and places of business. This is quite general in tax returns. 12 Such data are directly and intimately [345 U.S. 22, 32] related to the collection of the tax and are "obviously supportable as in aid of a revenue purpose." Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 , at 513. The registration provisions make the tax simpler to collect.


Of course, all taxation has a tendency, proportioned to its burdensomeness, to discourage the activity taxed. One cannot formulate a revenue-raising plan that would not have economic and social consequences. Congress may and should place the burden of taxes where it will least handicap desirable activities and bear most heavily on useless or harmful ones. If Congress may tax one citizen to the point of discouragement for making an honest living, it is hard to say that it may not do the same to another just because he makes a sinister living. If the law-abiding must tell all to the tax collector, it is difficult to excuse one because his business is law-breaking. Strangely enough, Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination has been refused to business as against inquisition by the regulatory power, Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 , in what seemed to me a flagrant violation of it. See dissenting opinion, id., at 70.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=345&invol=22

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue.[1] We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power. Alston v. United States, 274 U.S. 289, 294; Nigro v. United States, supra, 352, 353: Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 411, 413.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The present cause arises under those provisions of § 1 which impose a stamp tax on certain drugs and declare it unlawful to purchase or sell them except in or from original stamped packages. These provisions are clearly within the power of Congress to lay taxes and have no necessary connection with any requirement of the Act which may be subject to reasonable disputation. They do not absolutely prohibit buying or selling; have produced substantial revenue; contain nothing to indicate that by colorable use of taxation Congress is attempting to invade the reserved powers of the States. The impositions are not penalties.

[Galileo]

Umm the ruling limited the necessary and proper clause.

And I really fail to see how using the principle of honoring the constitutional interpretations of previous courts in any way as an encroachment.

An encroachment is the advance beyond the usual limits. Now how in the hell is using previous ruling anything but previously established limits? Its not constructionism. Even that bullshit that was bolded om the article was a quote that was cited.

And which part of the states administering medicaid expansion, establishing regulatory standards, retaining insurance from the private sector or anything else making "the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare?"

That is complete and utter horseshit.

Madison supported the notion of absolute inflexible interpretation of the constitution. Adams, Jefferson, Randolph, and Marshall did not. Oh well.

If you want to complain about the dismantling of federalism will the 1980s called and want their argument back.

Even the argument about open ended taxes argument is crap. The turn of the 20th century called and wants its argument back. 16th amendment, look it up. They amended the constitution to levy taxes on the basis of income.

Now I would also like for you to point out which portion of the Constitution puts a timetable on taxation whatever Madison may or may not have wanted.

The only thing that is even slightly specious is saying that in reference to the constitution the word choice does not trump what the statute actually does while saying in respect to other laws it is as is written. But even that has centuries of precedent. if congress wants to write legislation than the wording corresponds to other laws as they all wrote it within themselves then fine. OTOH, when reviewing it on terms of the governing document ie the Constitution then you look to what the law actually does rather than what it is called.

If that was not the case then for example congress could write a ban on women's suffrage as 'happy nondiscrimination time that denies or abridges nothing' and then go to the court saying it says right here its not discriminatory so it doesn't violate the 19th amendment.



That is the reasoning of why its a tax.

1) its paid to the treasury
2) its filed with your tax return
3) it doesn't apply to those that are below the taxable threshold
4) its amount is determined by taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status.
5) its written into the tax code
6) its collected and enforced by the IRS
7) its in the statute that it's supposed to be "collected in the same manner as taxes."
8) it produces money for the government

The salient portion is bolded.

Its interesting to note that all of those that call it unconstitutional never seem to quote the above.

i mean hell i am looking in that article for some portion that makes an argument for it being unconstitutional. I see the gratuitous comparison to Jim Crow but I am looking for the argument on constitutional grounds. the tax clause is very easy to understand.

Insurance was not considered "commerce" by any of the Founding Fathers and was never regulated by the federal government until at least 100 years after their time.

See Paul vs. Virginia (1869)

Insurance is not commerce. Obamacare is out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Insurance was not considered "commerce" by any of the Founding Fathers and was never regulated by the federal government until at least 100 years after their time.

See Paul vs. Virginia (1869)

Insurance is not commerce. Obamacare is out.

:lol

Duck my arguments.

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 1944


1. A fire insurance company which conducts a substantial part of its business transactions across state lines is engaged in "commerce among the several States," and subject to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause. P. 322 U. S. 539.

Note that's how you address an argument.

You conceded that your article does nothing to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the act as it didn't mention even your overturned case. You concede that the point on encroachment. You conceded the point on judicial review of statutes in regard to the constitution. You concede the case law defining taxes and rejecting definitions of penalty etc.

Try moar harder.

[Galileo]

:lol

Duck my arguments.

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 1944



Note that's how you address an argument.

You conceded that your article does nothing to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the act as it didn't mention even your overturned case. You concede that the point on encroachment. You conceded the point on judicial review of statutes in regard to the constitution. You concede the case law defining taxes and rejecting definitions of penalty etc.

Try moar harder.

Let me get this straight: insurance was not commerce from 1787 until 1944. Then all of a sudden in 1944 insurance was commerce? Right.

:lmao

[Drachen]

Let me get this straight: It was ok to own another person until 1863 and then all of a sudden it wasn't? Right.

:lol

Corrections are sometimes made Galileo.

[Galileo]

Let me get this straight: It was ok to own another person until 1863 and then all of a sudden it wasn't? Right.

:lol

Corrections are sometimes made Galileo.

That's not the same thing as changing the meaning of a word. Slavery was slavery before and after 1863.

[Galileo]

FYI - the slaves got free health care so the liberals should be happy about it.

:lmao

[Drachen]

That's not the same thing as changing the meaning of a word. Slavery was slavery before and after 1863.

You are right, but "all men are created equal" "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", etc. didn't have the same meaning.

Also before slavery was the acceptable owning of another human being (provided they met some physical characteristics)

Afterward slavery was the UNacceptable owning of another human being under any circumstances.

[Galileo]

You are right, but "all men are created equal" "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", etc. didn't have the same meaning.

Also before slavery was the acceptable owning of another human being (provided they met some physical characteristics)

Afterward slavery was the UNacceptable owning of another human being under any circumstances.

Great, but that has nothing to do with changing the meaning of the word 'commerce' in 1944.

Commerce definition (Blackstone):

"The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commerce

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let me get this straight: insurance was not commerce from 1787 until 1944. Then all of a sudden in 1944 insurance was commerce? Right.

:lmao

Umm there was no decision until 1869 when at the time the SCOTUS declined to call insurance commerce. In 1944, they said insurance transaction across state lines is commecrce which prima facia makes sense.

This is not exactly Plessy V Ferguson like you and your tin hat club would have us think.

The 1944 case overturned the 1896 case. Deal with it.

[Galileo]

Umm there was no decision until 1869 when at the time the SCOTUS declined to call insurance commerce. In 1944, they said insurance transaction across state lines is commecrce which prima facia makes sense.

This is not exactly Plessy V Ferguson like you and your tin hat club would have us think.

The 1944 case overturned the 1896 case. Deal with it.

The 1869 decision was based upon precedent from the Founding Fathers. Congress did not regulate insurance prior to 1869.

You are a shill for the insurance cartel. Too bad. They lost the case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The 1869 decision was based upon precedent from the Founding Fathers. Congress did not regulate insurance prior to 1869.

You are a shill for the insurance cartel. Too bad. They lost the case.

How about you quote the salinet portions then. This sounds like more throwing of shit against the wall.

I showed you the quotes from the 1944 case. Further how is saying that the feds can regulate insurance being a shill for the insurance industry? That doesn't make any sense.

[Galileo]

How about you quote the salinet portions then. This sounds like more throwing of shit against the wall.

I showed you the quotes from the 1944 case. Further how is saying that the feds can regulate insurance being a shill for the insurance industry? That doesn't make any sense.

Paul v. Virginia


Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall) 168 (1869), was a historic case in corporate law in which the United States Supreme Court held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Of greater consequence, the Court further held that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce," effectively removing the business of insurance beyond the United States Congress's legislative reach.

Facts


In the 19th century, the insurance business was exclusively regulated by the US state individually. As a result, a patchwork of separate regulations proliferated to the dismay of insurance companies which sought uniform regulation across states. In an effort to promote federal regulation of the insurance industry, a number of New York insurance companies orchestrated a test case to try to invalidate state regulation. On February 3, 1866, the legislature of Virginia had passed a statute provided that an insurance company not incorporated under the laws of the state should not carry on its business within the State without previously obtaining a license for that purpose and that it should not receive such license until it had deposited with the treasurer of the state bonds in an amount varying from thirty to fifty thousand dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_v._Virginia

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do you continue to cite a ruling from 150 years ago that was overturned in 1944?

Why don't you cite Plessy v Ferguson while you're at it? Does it make you feel better. It was overturned so just deal with it.

[Galileo]

Why do you continue to cite a ruling from 150 years ago that was overturned in 1944?

Why don't you cite Plessy v Ferguson while you're at it? Does it make you feel better. It was overturned so just deal with it.

The ruling in 1869 was based upon the plain text of the Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers. The decision in 1944 was not. That's why.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The ruling in 1869 was based upon the plain text of the Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers. The decision in 1944 was not. That's why.

We have had a discussion about the founding fathers and for you to imply that thye were of uniform mind is so completely full of shit. Even the standrds that you claim Madison set were not violated. See my arguments above.

And you are qualified to judge what is or is not constitutional because....

Oh yeah you are some random partisan hack.

You gave one definition that was limited.

Here is another one:

the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

and another:

(Business / Commerce) the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

and another:

Exchange of goods or services for money or in kind, usually on a scale large enough to require transportation from place to place or across city, state, or national boundaries.

and another:

Commerce is the whole system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business. This is in contrast with business, the value-creating activities of an organization for profit. The system includes legal, economic, political, social, cultural, and technological systems that are in operation in any country. Thus, commerce is a system or an environment that affects the business prospects of an economy or a nation-state.

and another:

COMMERCE : COMMERCE Commerce refers to all those activities which help directly or indirectly in the distribution of goods to the ultimate consumer.

Functions of commerce : Functions of commerce 1.Removes Personal Hindrance 2.Removes Place Hindrance 3.Removes Time Hindrance 4.Removes Finance Hindrance 4.Removes Risk Hindrance 5.Removes Knowledge Hindrance

Personal Hindrance : Personal Hindrance Removed by Trader TRADER manufacturer wholesaler retailer

Place Hindrance : Place Hindrance Removed by Transport

TIME HINDRANCE : TIME HINDRANCE Removed by warehousing

Finance hindrance : Finance hindrance Banks remove this hindrance

Risk hindrance : Risk hindrance Removed by Insurance

and another:

The buying and selling of products and services between firms, usually in different states or countries.

and another:

The conduct of trade amongst economic agents. Generally, commerce refers to the exchange of goods, services or something of value, between businesses or entities. As a broad concern, nations are concerned with managing commerce in a way that enhances the well-being of citizens, by providing jobs and producing beneficial goods and services

and another:

interstate commerce n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services, and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement under Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Theoretically commerce is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) under authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Act, first enacted by Congress in 1887. This authority has been diffused among various federal agencies, and the I.C.C. may soon be history.


Its obviously interstate.

[scott]

If only we could go back to the good ol' days of 1869

[Galileo]

We have had a discussion about the founding fathers and for you to imply that thye were of uniform mind is so completely full of shit. Even the standrds that you claim Madison set were not violated. See my arguments above.


I never said or implied that all Founders agreed on every subject. But they all agreed that insurance was not commerce.


interstate commerce n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services, and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement under Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Theoretically commerce is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) under authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Act, first enacted by Congress in 1887. This authority has been diffused among various federal agencies, and the I.C.C. may soon be history.

All Gibbons vs Ogden did was rule that a river flowing from one state to another or between states could be regulated by interstate commerce. Duh, that's why they ratified the Constitution.

[Galileo]

If only we could go back to the good ol' days of 1869

God forbid we go back to the days of no IRS, no income tax, no war upon drugs, no war upon terror, no war on poverty, no CIA, no DEA, no FBI, no EPA, no department of education, no Big Brother. God forbid. I couldn't through the day without these things.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said or implied that all Founders agreed on every subject. But they all agreed that insurance was not commerce.



All Gibbons vs Ogden did was rule that a river flowing from one state to another or between states could be regulated by interstate commerce. Duh, that's why they ratified the Constitution.

Lol so now the founders didn't want insurance regulated. Were any still even alive in 1869 to comment on that ruling? I know they didn't write it in the actual text and the crap that 'quoted' from Madison does not sya what you claim it does nor doe it even mention insurance.

The 1944 case is very straight forward:


1. A fire insurance company which conducts a substantial part of its business transactions across state lines is engaged in "commerce among the several States," and subject to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause. P. 322 U. S. 539.

Find something that postdates that and is valid to the argument the great. Even show me in the constitution where insurance get an exemption but all this other stuff is like you are rolling around on and beating the floor screaming.

[Galileo]

Lol so now the founders didn't want insurance regulated.

dumbshit. The Founders wanted the states to regulate insurance.

[scott]

God forbid we go back to the days of no IRS, no income tax, no war upon drugs, no war upon terror, no war on poverty, no CIA, no DEA, no FBI, no EPA, no department of education, no Big Brother. God forbid. I couldn't through the day without these things.

What a utopia that would be in 2012

[FuzzyLumpkins]

dumbshit. The Founders wanted the states to regulate insurance.

Really I missed the word 'insurance' in any of the Constitution, Madison's writings, or any of the people at the 1st Constitutional Convention.

You are reminding me of WC of trying to will shit to be true even though not quite as dumb.

What do interstate mean? I do see that in the Constitution.

[Galileo]

Really I missed the word 'insurance' in any of the Constitution, Madison's writings, or any of the people at the 1st Constitutional Convention.

You are reminding me of WC of trying to will shit to be true even though not quite as dumb.

What do interstate mean? I do see that in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution says congress can regulate insurance. The idea was invented in 1944.

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really I missed the word 'insurance' in any of the Constitution, Madison's writings, or any of the people at the 1st Constitutional Convention.

You are reminding me of WC of trying to will shit to be true even though not quite as dumb.

What do interstate mean? I do see that in the Constitution.

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

What do among the several states mean?

Is this always your schtick just refuse to acknowledge points and repeat yourself?

So far we have determined.

1) Commerce can and often is defined as including insurance and other sevices.
2) Madison did not say what you wanted him to say.
3) The Constitution while granting the authority to regulate commerce between states at no point excludes insurance
4) The current SCOTUS precedent from 1944 agrees with me
5) You still haven't figured out which is more recent 1944 or 1869
6) The states are indeed involved in the administering of Medicaid expansion, regulatory efforts and setting up of exchanges.
7) Madison nor the Constitution even bring up the insurance industry.
8) You think regulating insurance is what the insurance industry wants.

All in all you do an excellent job of ignoring all of the above plus more and try the bait and switch. It's weak as hell.

[Galileo]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

What do among the several states mean?

Is this always your schtick just refuse to acknowledge points and repeat yourself?

So far we have determined.

1) Commerce can and often is defined as including insurance and other sevices.
2) Madison did not say what you wanted him to say.
3) The Constitution while granting the authority to regulate commerce between states at no point excludes insurance
4) The current SCOTUS precedent from 1944 agrees with me
5) You still haven't figured out which is more recent 1944 or 1869
6) The states are indeed involved in the administering of Medicaid expansion, regulatory efforts and setting up of exchanges.
7) Madison nor the Constitution even bring up the insurance industry.
8) You think regulating insurance is what the insurance industry wants.

All in all you do an excellent job of ignoring all of the above plus more and try the bait and switch. It's weak as hell.

Insurance isn't commerce. The Supreme Court said so in 1869. You are an insurance cartel shill.

:hat

[TDMVPDPOY]

down here just had some reforms to healthcare also, mainly private healthcare...if u earn over 60k u must get private healthcare unless you dont wanna be force to pay an extra 1% tax levy, but then again private healthcare is cheap and could come out better then the tax u being slugged depending on what package u select...its still tax deductible; dunno why ppl are complaining....

getting onto the private system doesnt mean u get the full benefits of claiming the rebates for certain outlays, cause its all means tested when ur in the higher income brackets ur medical rebates end up zero....

being on the private system doesnt mean ur excluded from going onto the public system, if u cbf with the public system waiting list; u can always jump onto ur private plan u paid for and use its benefits....but seriously i see no different in the care from the public or private sector, all operations and procedures are done...could care less about hospital stay, you want to be out of there ASAP then continue to stay inside doing nothing....

[TDMVPDPOY]

down here just had some reforms to healthcare also, mainly private healthcare...if u earn over 60k u must get private healthcare unless you dont wanna be force to pay an extra 1% tax levy, but then again private healthcare is cheap and could come out better then the tax u being slugged depending on what package u select...its still tax deductible; dunno why ppl are complaining....

getting onto the private system doesnt mean u get the full benefits of claiming the rebates for certain outlays, cause its all means tested when ur in the higher income brackets ur medical rebates end up zero....

being on the private system doesnt mean ur excluded from going onto the public system, if u cbf with the public system waiting list; u can always jump onto ur private plan u paid for and use its benefits....but seriously i see no different in the care from the public or private sector, all operations and procedures are done...could care less about hospital stay, you want to be out of there ASAP then continue to stay inside doing nothing....