What next? Nullify!

@joshuamiller79 You are so welcome! You keep that up, y'a hear?

 @Alex Hamilton "The founders understood that determining the meaning of the Constitution and its applicability is a matter of interpretation of law, which is inherently a judicial function."

I would seriosley consider that some kind of fraud or deception is going on if the opinion of the people who wrote the law differed from the opinion of the people who interpret the law.  I would also consider that it would be incredibly undemocratic if the people create a law with a specific intent and purpose and have the judiciary give it an entirely different intent and meaning that the people never wanted.  This idea that the judiciary is completely free to construct whatever meaning they want from the text seems to give them the power to recreate the law itself which is a legislative power.  A power that they don't have because it is a power given to the congress alone.  It also flies in the face of the 9th and 11th amendments that tell everyone how this document is to be interpreted.  

 @Alex Hamilton There are so many historical fallacies in this I'm not sure where to begin... Let's see if I can answer at least a few of them.

1. The Judiciary was never meant to be the "be all and end all" which is what you seem to be implying. As Thomas Jefferson himself said, "'To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions,' he argued, 'would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps--and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life...'" The idea that the states, which created the federal government to act as their agent, would have no control over that agent is silly. To then say that the states, which entered into an agreement and then created this agent, would have no ability to interpret it as well is just crazy. The federal government cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798, it will continue to grow--regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The three branches of the federal government could simply unite against the independence of the states and the reserved rights of the people.

    This is exactly what has happened time and time again. In your model the people have no remedy. 

2. Where do you get the idea that the founders, in the case of a dispute between the states and the general government, envisioned the Supreme Court as the final arbiter? Article III is very vague and, in my reading, does not envision the Supreme court as the final arbiter of constitutionality. What you are expressing is John Marshalls vision, a decidedly radical vision when compared to original intent. 

3. Saying nullification is not constitutional because it was not debated in the Constitutional Convention is a diversion on your part. What is the purpose of the Constitution? It is to delegate power to the general government. It is a document which says just what the GENERAL GOVERNMENT can do, not what the states can and can not do. Their powers are not discussed by the Constitution as it is not the purpose of the Constitution to do that. The people of the several states are the sovereign in the American system, not the federal level of government. This means...

4. The people of the several states are the sovereign, and when there is a dispute, when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.  No other arrangement makes sense.  No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power.  In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.

5. I find it odd that you have a problem with nullification being not mentioned in the constitution, it's not enumerated. This is an odd complaint, coming as it usually does from those who in any other circumstance do not seem especially concerned to find express constitutional sanction for particular government policies.

The mere fact that a state’s reserved right to obstruct the enforcement of an unconstitutional law is not expressly stated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist.  The Constitution is supposed to establish a federal government of enumerated powers, with the remainder reserved to the states or the people.  Essentially nothing the states do is authorized in the federal Constitution, since enumerating the states’ powers is not the purpose and is alien to the structure of that document.

 @dustys Maybe. 

 @mygyro You can pass a law or you could hold a convention which would declare it unconstitutional and therefore null and void in your state.

 @Zinsky  The only reason anyone is forced to pay for someone else's vist to the emergency room is because of anther unauthersed and unconenable Federal userpation Known as the 1986 COBRA act. 

This act was a budget pushed thou at the very last minute with an amendment which forced hospitals to effectively giveaway their goods & services for free.  The result of this act was predictably a long chain of bankruptcy and consoldations across the Federation of hospitals unable to absobe the financal loss, as well as sinficantly higher healthcare costs.

So now you propose to fix the problem created by one oppressive mandate with anther oppressive mandate.  Why not just abolish the first oppressive mandate?

 @Zinsky So, making slaves of those in the medical profession doesn't bother you? Clearly, force this on a citizen doesn't bother you. Prehaps you will get the mental health care you can't afford now when Obamacare kicks in,  but at such a cost to the rest of us...

 @Zinsky The real issue is a person's ability to choose for themselves.  If you think health insurance is to expensive then don't buy it at all.  That seems to save a person a lot of money and if you ever need some health care then you have to pay for it.   Most hospitals don't let you walk out without making some kind of payment plan.  You hear that.  You pay it back and probably with interest.  This means I am not paying for others. 

The second bomb to drop on your argument is that it really doesn't cost you anything at all for a doctor to treat someone for free.  When you pay for your treatment the doctor recieves money.  That money is his and if he wants to use it to treat others then that didn't cost you a thing.  You didn't get another bill in the mail trying to make you pay for johnies free service.  The doctor used his own money, time, and resources to do so and he didn't bill you for it so it didn't cost you a thing.

Now if you are going to say that the doctor made the service more expensive by trying to cover the cost of the uninsured then why not say that the doctor is also making the service more expensive by trying to cover the cost of his sports car.   He could have bought a Honda instead of the lamborgini.  Why not mandate the maximum amount of money a doctor can spend on their own life by XYZ so that we don't have to cover the cost of his expensive lifestyle?  It is a silly argument and so is the one about covering the uninsured.

 @Zinsky Your lack of curiosity about this issue is almost as shocking as your ability to completely swallow the "standard" answer about healthcare without doing some thinking and analysis of that answer. 

The system we have now is NOT privatized. That's the problem. The federal government already, prior to "Obamacare" accounts for 50% of all health-care expenditures. Since when is that "free market"? Hint: it is not. Add to this government regulation which increases demand and cuts supply (as doctors choose to retire or not accept things like Medicare/Medicaid) and what happens to the cost? Here's another hint (since you obviously failed economics 101): price increases. 

You say to do nothing would be more expensive than Obamacare... Do you know what the current of debt the US is at? Do you know the amount of unfunded liabilities we currently are on the hook for? How about this: what are the three biggest items in the federal budget? 

Rather than buy the "party line" hook, line and sinker perhaps you should do some research and give it some thought before you spout off a bunch of BS...

 @Search4diabetescure I will not entertain Anti-semitism, the Jewish faith does not make a man do such evil things to other men as John Roberts did to us.  Only corruption of power has that effect.

 @gopwop Did the senate just add things to it or was it a totally different bill entirely because they are allowed to add amendments to it if they wanted. 

 @gopwop I wish I can give you one million pts for that answer because you are exactly right. 

 @gopwop Not to mention as the decent noted if the individual mandate were a tax it would be a direct tax and thus require apportionment among the states.

It seems John negated to write a section defining how that apportionment is to be done in his hast to rewrite the bill.

@history_man1 ...just gives us more opportunity to rally the masses and push the state back. This ruling is going to be bone crushing.

@history_man1 well, I know what I'll be busy working on promoting - #nullification of #aca