TexasCHLforum.com

marksiwel wrote:

timdsmith72 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:please post something that supports your claim that its a privilege

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not a very long document. You should read it some time . Nowhere in there does it give the government the right to FORCE us to buy anything.

I have read it, how nice that you would assume I hadnt. Wanna hear some fun things? No where in that document does it say you have the right to travel, the number of supreme court justices, the right to VOTE (Go ahead, try and argue it, I'll win), that you have a right to Privacy, Theres nothing about Checks and Balances, Immigration, Capitalism, Congressional Districts, or the word God.
You should try reading it AGAIN , it doesnt say alot.

I guess we will have to wait for the Supreme Court ruling that says weather or not the Healthcare bill is Constitutional. My guess is they will use the commerce clause to say its okay.

Hmmmm....I don't recall saying that it did say anything about any of those things. And you're right!!! It DOESN'T say a whole lot. That's the POINT! The Federal Government has no rights except for those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And that is...as you so kindly pointed out....Not a lot.
So tell me again how it's Constitutional for them to FORCE me to buy anything?

timdsmith72 wrote: So tell me again how it's Constitutional for them to FORCE me to buy anything?

The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
gotta eat! The wife is yelling

marksiwel wrote:You should try reading it AGAIN , it doesnt say alot.

That's because Federal powers were supposed to be extremely limited.

It's a sad state of affairs that King George's abuses pale in comparison to what we endure today. The tree is in desperate need of manure.

Was I missing a point somewhere in there?

marksiwel wrote:

driver8 wrote:Haven't been able to find anything on the cases you have. Sounds to me like the right to travel is not the right to drive a car on public roads. You answer my question. Do you have the right not to travel?

Your google-fu is weak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Guest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/980723.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do I have the Right NOT To Travel? Do you have the RIGHT NOT to own a gun? yes you can refuse to travel. You also can refuse to breath if you want to. But you cant legally kill yourself. The Law is a funny thing.

Let me discuss your citations.

First, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Guest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or, more properly, United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966). This case had to do with a civil rights activist, and police officer, was shot and killed while driving on a bridge in Madison County, Georgia. This case extends the protections of the 14th Amendment to persons who have their rights deprived due to a conspiracy, whether or not the State was a party to the conspiracy. In this case, some private citizens took it upon themselves to deprive certain other people the use of public roadways. The Court states in its opinion that the right to travel upon public roadways for all citizens is protected by the 14th Amendment, whereby you cannot deprive a person of any rights that are allowed other persons. It doesn't specifically stated we have a Constitutional right to use public roads - it says if a public roadway is open to some people it's open to all people. It doesn't necessarily state we have a Constitutional right to travel upon them - otherwise, the closing of a public road to everyone would be unconstitutional.

Second, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_v._Thompson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). This case was, at essence, a case involving social welfare. It examined laws that mandated residency in a State for a certain period of time in order to obtain public welfare benefits. Many States had laws that made people ineligible for welfare benefits unless they had established permanent residency in that State for a period of six months. The States argued they needed this law to keep people from moving to a state with better welfare benefits than the state they moved from. The Court ruled that inhibiting needy people from migrating from State to State was Constitutionally prohibited. Thus, we have a right to move from State to State and to be uninhibited in that migration. Thus, we have the right to move from State to State, but the court never stated we have a right to drive on public highways to facilitate that migration.

Third, http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/980723.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This one's just plain nuts. Some guy on a Compuserve forum stated that in Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago (1929) which was argued in front of the Illinois Supreme Court (NOT SCOTUS), the Court ruled that it's unconstitutional for the State to require a driver's license, auto registration, and insurance in order to drive. That's not what the case was about. Chicago Motor Coach vs Chigaco was about whether the City of Chicago could require a city license for use of a public road if the operator already had a state license to use the same public road. The Court specifically stated in their ruling ""The Legislature may prohibit by general law the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways of the state. ..." It says later, "Even the Legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."

So, while we do have a right to use any public roadway which is open for travel to the general public, the right to travel upon those same roads may be regulated.

I don't see how any of these cases are relevant in the health care or auto insurance discussion, though. See my previous post regarding auto insurance.

Good, I was beginning to wonder if it was me

marksiwel wrote:... the right to VOTE (Go ahead, try and argue it, I'll win), ...

I was going to argue this point with you by pointing out the 15th Amendment, which states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

However, upon further reflection, I realized you're completely correct. This Amendment only states you cannot be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. If the government wanted to say only people who own their own home can vote, that would be Constitutional. If they wanted to say only black homeowners could vote, that would not.

This Amendment was worded this way specifically to prevent ex-Confederates from claiming a right to vote, since all Confederates were denied that right after the Civil War. It's really more remarkable for what it doesn't do, rather than what it does do.

Very interesting, indeed, and a point to you, sir.

marksiwel wrote:

timdsmith72 wrote: So tell me again how it's Constitutional for them to FORCE me to buy anything?

The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
gotta eat! The wife is yelling

That is what they will try to argue...But that is most definitely not what was intended. The Socialists that passed the bill know it too. They just don't give a hoot.

One of the powers enumerated on it was the "Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States." One of the most serious deficiencies of the first union under the Articles of Confederation was that states were able to erect barriers to trade with other states and foreign countries. The Commerce Clause was added to the Constitution so that Congress could create the original North American free trade zone — within the U.S. itself.

If the courts uphold Congress's authority to impose this system, they must once and for all draw the curtain on the Constitution of 1787.

I am not a lawyer but also...

I am not a foreign Nation.

I am not several States.

I am not an Indian tribe.

boomerang wrote:I am not a lawyer but also...

I am not a foreign Nation.

I am not several States.

I am not an Indian tribe.

That sounds like those Microsoft ads that went "I am not...."

I think when all is said in done, it wont be found unconstitutional and our lives will go on and the earth's crust will not fall into the ocean.

Kythas wrote: Very interesting, indeed, and a point to you, sir.

Thanks for taking the challange. Also thank you for reading the Court Cases I mentioned. I did goof and say/imply that the Chicago case was a Scotus case.
Honestly I wish I could get my wife on here, this stuff excites her, it just bores me. So a point to you as well.

marksiwel wrote:

Kythas wrote: Very interesting, indeed, and a point to you, sir.

Thanks for taking the challange. Also thank you for reading the Court Cases I mentioned. I did goof and say/imply that the Chicago case was a Scotus case.
Honestly I wish I could get my wife on here, this stuff excites her, it just bores me. So a point to you as well.

The person who wrote the original Compuserve post stated it was a SCOTUS case.

PSLOwner wrote:

boomerang wrote:I am not a lawyer but also...

I am not a foreign Nation.

I am not several States.

I am not an Indian tribe.

That sounds like those Microsoft ads that went "I am not...."

I think when all is said in done, it wont be found unconstitutional and our lives will go on and the earth's crust will not fall into the ocean.

True, our lives will continue and the earth's crust will not fall into the ocean. But our country will go bankrupt.

Kythas wrote:
True, our lives will continue and the earth's crust will not fall into the ocean. But our country will go bankrupt.

too late
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

marksiwel wrote:

driver8 wrote:Do you think Switzerland has the same factors dragging down their healthcare system that the U.S. does? Do you think they have the same ratio of tax payers to tax moochers we do? What is their population, about 800?

care to post the Tax Payers to Moochers Ratio in America?

Here is some information:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25965.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/ ... 5874.shtml

The tax foundation has some interesting information you might want to look at. It clearly shows since the Progressive's (liberals such as Pelosi, Mrs. Clinton, Obama, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt) initiated the PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX in 1913 that more citizens do not pay taxes, rather forcing the "wealthy people"(Obama's definition: gross income of $250,000 per household) that actually create jobs and work for their money. What do you think will happen with the healthcare bill? More and more people will seem entitled to have free health care while "wealthy" citizens pay for them.

A little side note of what some people may do because they are forced to pay for non-working people. I was listening to talk radio on the way back from Austin the other morning and a caller called in about the bill. He said the company he works for pays on average $3100/month for healthcare for their employees with a profit margin of 12 to 13%. He stated that the company was issuing a memo on Monday that effective June 1 the company would no longer pay for the employees health care cost. Rather, the company would pay the $2000 fine per employee for not providing insurance which would actually double their profit margin. I believe that company will not be the first or last to do that.