I have a question about the Supreme court Decision yesterday...?

"By a 5-4 vote, the court held the law's mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty valid under Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. The financial penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote."

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions."

Not even close? Lol. Ok. Pretty sure I hit the nail right on the head there...

Carola43 - as I do not agree with that law, it is a State law. And it's not in every State. That is where issues like this Constitutionally belong. Ever read the 9th and 10th Amendment?

Article 1 section 8 clause 17 US Constitution

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This means that Federal law only applies to Federal Territories. ie District of Columbia, Puerto Rico etc. They have no Police power over STATE CITIZENS. The Supreme court just extended the power to force YOU to buy whatever CONGRESS DEEMS NECESSARY. They extended their jurisdiction over the States to force people to buy stuff. The States have that power because the people of the State have the right to choose for themselves their own Government, because it is more local and they ha

have more power to change it.

this has been your Constitutional crash course on how most people are completely ignorant of how our government is supposed to function. Federal Law - Federal territories, doesn't apply to you unless you are on Federal land. State law - State territories, doesn't apply to you unless you are on State land. This is like France deciding that Americans have to buy insurance and the Supreme court saying OK, Yeah they can fine you if you don't listen... Not with in their power.

No I would say I understand it just as well as them. It wasn't interstate commerce because it's purchased with-in the State and used in the State. So they couldn't apply it to citizens in that way, so they called the fine or penalty an excise tax so that Federal would be applicable to the States. Because the only 2 ways that the Federal Govt has any power over the citizenry is through interstate commerce and taxes. Look at gun regulations, they were overturned as unconstitutional until they put the words "any firearm or ammunition that has ever traveled in interstate commerce". But since they put those words in, it took the States right to regulate firearms and ammunition for it's citizens and placed it in the hands of the Federal govt. But in order to be charged with a Federal Firearms law violation, the Govt must first prove that the gun was in fact in interstate commerce. Federal taxes are the same thing. I think it's sad that you who live in th

Since the States have allowed medical marijuana there have been court cases that have challenged the jurisdiction of drug prohibition within the States. The Supreme court has decided that the Federal govt can charge State citizens with medical marijuana licenses with Federal crimes for growing marijuana because if "they were not allowed to enforce it on medical marijuana users, then it would undermine the ability to enforce the Federal laws on anybody, because there is no way to determine if the marijuana was used in interstate commerce. I understand the Constitution very well. If your "opinion" of how things work is different than mine, then you have no clue how your government operates and I can direct you to several court cases to prove my point if you wish, just email me. With the commerce clause they usurped a power to control what you can't buy, they gave themselves the ability to prohibit items for purchase. With the ability to tax, they usurped the power

to tell you what you have to purchase and if not then they can fine you. This is a GROSS misinterpretation of the powers of Congress and if you don't understand that, then you have never actually read the Constitution and have no idea what thosee 144,000 words mean. But thanks for attacking me and not stating facts to prove any point. When the debate is lost (this one before it started with you) slander is the tool of the loser. -Aristotle. Thanks for playing, thumbs down for ignorance and insults.

And for the record it was one justice over half of them that have some strange new interpretation of the Constitution. The rest saw things this way.