Guns required in SD ! Whoo hoo

[R.E.T.]

So, if requiring me to buy health insurance is potentially in violation of the constitution, how is it that in MN I have to buy auto insurance?

I don't get why to this day the healthcare law is referenced to the auto insurance requirement.

1. The individual STATES require you to purchase car insurance if you operate a motor vehicle on the roads. Not the federal government. BIG difference there. States can make such laws. In no where in our US Constitution does it say that the federal government can force you to purchase anything.

2. The healthcare act states that if you don't have health insurance you will pay a fine, if you don't own a motor vehicle, you don't need to buy auto insurance, whether or not you actually CHOOSE to drive is up to you, as stated above, pure existence is the factor in the healthcare law. Even though there is no public transportation where you live, you don't, or should I say, you aren't forced to purchase a car and car insurance. Healthcare law mandates you purchase healthcare, unless you are a big union person that owns the government, then you get an exemption.

The U.S. Constitution sets limits on what the Federal government can do. Everything else is left to the states and the people. If anyone gives a damn.

[traveler]

The U.S. Constitution sets limits on what the Federal government can do. Everything else is left to the states and the people. If anyone gives a damn.

I believe many of us, if not all of us, would agree with you, except that the Congress has stretched the Commerce Clause to the point where it is nearly able to do whatever it pleases in the way of passing laws on any and all concerns.

[Pinnacle]

Well some of think that owning a gun as a mandate is a good thing and is OK and Cool and all of that, here is the thing, Government FORCING you to buy something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

boggles the mind what passes for laws nowadays.

[Amithus]

Well some of think that owning a gun as a mandate is a good thing and is OK and Cool and all of that, here is the thing, Government FORCING you to buy something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

boggles the mind what passes for laws nowadays.

+1

[nyffman]

Well some of think that owning a gun as a mandate is a good thing and is OK and Cool and all of that, here is the thing, Government FORCING you to buy something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

boggles the mind what passes for laws nowadays.

Let's hear from some of our resident Constitutional scholars on this. I would say it is unconstitutional for the Federal Govt to force you to buy anything. It may be wrong for state or local govt to force you to buy anything, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

[Pinnacle]

Well some of think that owning a gun as a mandate is a good thing and is OK and Cool and all of that, here is the thing, Government FORCING you to buy something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

boggles the mind what passes for laws nowadays.

Let's hear from some of our resident Constitutional scholars on this. I would say it is unconstitutional for the Federal Govt to force you to buy anything. It may be wrong for state or local govt to force you to buy anything, but not necessarily unconstitutional.

States rights can not operate outside of the US Constitution. I am no scholar on the matter, but the thing is that if Obama Care has rubbed the constitiution the wrong way - this law would as well.

A state can never superceed the constitution.

[goalie]

You guys do realize that SD is passing this in order to show that the health care mandate is unconstitutional as well, right? They picked an inanimate object that they knew would elicit a visceral negative response from the same judges that support obbamy-care.

It is actually a pretty good FU if you think about it.

[Heffay]

I think the difference is that SD is a state, and if it's not a violation of their state constitution, in theory they *could* pass that law.

Should make Sturgis a whole new... wait a min, nevermind. Nothing will change there if this is passed.

[DeanC]

I think the difference is that SD is a state, and if it's not a violation of their state constitution, in theory they *could* pass that law.

Sure. Most states have been able to legally require drivers to purchase liability insurance for their cars for decades now.

[goalie]

I think the difference is that SD is a state, and if it's not a violation of their state constitution, in theory they *could* pass that law.

Sure. Most states have been able to legally require drivers to purchase liability insurance for their cars for decades now.

But they don't make you buy a car

[Heffay]

I think the difference is that SD is a state, and if it's not a violation of their state constitution, in theory they *could* pass that law.

Sure. Most states have been able to legally require drivers to purchase liability insurance for their cars for decades now.

But they don't make you buy a car

But they *could*.

[traveler]

I think the difference is that SD is a state, and if it's not a violation of their state constitution, in theory they *could* pass that law.

Sure. Most states have been able to legally require drivers to purchase liability insurance for their cars for decades now.

However, it is the state's roads. You need a license for the vehicle and a license for the driver, and the requirement for insurance.

Private roads: No license nor insurance requirements I believe.

If the Obama health plan survives challenge, there would be absolutely nothing that the Federal Government could not force require you to purchase or do. I sincerely believe that progressives see the Commerce Clause as a wormhole by which to subvert, sabotage, circumvent the entire United States Constitution.

[nyffman]

The progressives discovered the commerce clause a long time ago. Check out Wickard v. Filburn from 1942. They are persistent little bastards.

[DeanC]

The progressives discovered the commerce clause a long time ago. Check out Wickard v. Filburn from 1942. They are persistent little bastards.

I'd say you actually have to go back to the middle of the 19th century to see where the Feds started turning the Constitution inside-out.

[nyffman]

Yes, I just picked that one because it was the first to come to mind. That's just more proof that they are persistent little bastards.