Indiana State Senator: “I Will Decide What’s Constitutional, Not You”

[ATM]

...The proposed law states that the ACA goes beyond the powers of the Federal Government, which the Supreme Court has affimed as Constitutional. WE LOST the Constitutional battle...

Well that makes sense... we should just let the Federal Government have the final say on when or how the Federal Government has overstepped the limits we placed upon the Federal Government when we created it.

Can't see any possible conflict of interest there.

Dumb old founders probably just missed that huge loophole to unlimited Federal powers.

 

[ATM]

It is against Indiana state law to possess a "Chinese throwing star"...

You just had to pick one of our most embarrassingly ridiculous state laws, didn't you?

 

[JimmyR]

Well that makes sense... we should just let the Federal Government have the final say on when or how the Federal Government has overstepped the limits we placed upon the Federal Government when we created it.

Can't see any possible conflict of interest there.

Dumb old founders probably just missed that huge loophole to unlimited Federal powers.

As opposed to whom? You? Me? Joe Schmo?

The interpretation and application of the Constitution to different circumstances is the job of the Supreme Court. Just because you and I disagree with their ruling doesn't change the ruling itself.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It is against Indiana state law to possess a "Chinese throwing star". It is not against federal law to do so....

True, but completely irrelevant. Obviously there are things that are legal at the state level that are illegal federally and vice versa. That's not what is under discussion here. Those situations are not untenable, you can easily choose to not have a throwing star and be in compliance with both federal and state laws as no one is requiring you to have one. We are talking about making it illegal at the state level to do something the federal government mandates.

As an easy to understand hypothetical that would affect citizens beyond elected officials, let's say Indiana decided the draft was unconstitutional and made it illegal for any male to register with selective service. You are an 18 year old male faced with the decision to register or not. If you don't register, you can be arrested and charged federally. If you do register, you can be fined and arrested at the state level. Your legal situation is untenable, YOU CANNOT ABIDE BY THE LAW, no matter what choice you make you are doing something illegal.

 

[JS1911]

Long is just saving people's time and money. Good for him.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Citation?

 

[ATM]

As opposed to whom? You? Me? Joe Schmo?

The interpretation and application of the Constitution to different circumstances is the job of the Supreme Court. Just because you and I disagree with their ruling doesn't change the ruling itself.

As opposed to the states, which is the level of response we are discussing in this thread, not simply individual citizens.

I'll just go ahead and quote my position from post #39:

...We created the federal government.
Who do you think should be the final arbiters of its powers and limitations, the creators or the creature?

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rocdenindy]

Its a standard practice. If they don't believe in the bill, they don't care.

 

[level.eleven]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Citation?

By not wasting time with legislation that will end in costly legal battles. Like I said earlier, the same reason creationist bills or prayer bills get dumped to committee each year. There is no need to waste time discussing them, passing them, and then losing in court.

 

[Ted]

By not wasting time with legislation that will end in costly legal battles. Like I said earlier, the same reason creationist bills or prayer bills get dumped to committee each year. There is no need to waste time discussing them, passing them, and then losing in court.

Yeah. Its not like the states are sovereign or anything.

Oh wait...............

 

[JimmyR]

As opposed to the states, which is the level of response we are discussing in this thread, not simply individual citizens.

I'll just go ahead and quote my position from post #39:

As long as we are dealing with Federal laws (including the PPACA), then the Federal level of government must be the deciding factor. Otherwise, there is no Federal government, and as much as some people think that would be a great idea, we kinda tried that already with the Articles of Confederation.

If the ACA was passed by the US Congress, which we know to be true, AND

If the Supreme Court, upon their review of the Constituionality of the individual mandate, finds that Congress acted within the scope of their power, which we also know to be true; THEN

It holds that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution must apply, until such time as one of the two premises is changed.

 

[ATM]

...If the Supreme Court, upon their review of the Constituionality of the individual mandate, finds that Congress acted within the scope of their power, which we also know to be true; THEN...

Then they chose to "find" something which the Constitution does not authorize Congress to do by simply redefining it into such terms which they are authorized to do.

I can't imagine any Constitutional border or limitation impervious to such blatant language manipulation and distortion, so I guess it was only a matter of time until none such exist.

 

[rambone]

Why bother having states? All we need is a centralized government that can go unchallenged micro-managing citizens' lives. Pesky efforts to shield citizens from the Feds are a waste of money.

 

[ATM]

Why bother having states? All we need is a centralized government that can go unchallenged micro-managing citizens' lives. Pesky efforts to shield citizens from the Feds are a waste of money.

We could then change our name to the United State of Perpetual Bliss.

It will be fantastic!

 

[IndyDave1776]

We could then change our name to the United State of Perpetual Bliss.

It will be fantastic!

Is that anything like the workers' paradise?

 

[JimmyR]

Then they chose to "find" something which the Constitution does not authorize Congress to do by simply redefining it into such terms which they are authorized to do.

I can't imagine any Constitutional border or limitation impervious to such blatant language manipulation and distortion, so I guess it was only a matter of time until none such exist.

I am by no means attempting to agree with the Court's decision. I thought the individual mandate would be struck down fairly easily. However, now that the decision was made, I have to support the Constitution, and the implements it specifies for its application. I don't like it, but I can't say that I want to uphold the Constitution, but only the parts that I like. I have to take the good with the bad. Does the SC make mistakes, of course! But I can't advocate for the establishment of a law that flies in the face of such a recent case.

Why bother having states? All we need is a centralized government that can go unchallenged micro-managing citizens' lives. Pesky efforts to shield citizens from the Feds are a waste of money.

While I know you meant that in sarcasm, I wonder how that would work? Would the strong Conservatism of the South/Midwest and Rural areas be enough to actually run a more middle ground government? Think of the simplifications to the legal system if we got rid of an entire layer of government. I'm not suggesting it, but more thinking out loud....

We could then change our name to the United State of Perpetual Bliss.

It will be fantastic!

I think someone forgot their purple...

 

[Bill of Rights]

True, but completely irrelevant. Obviously there are things that are legal at the state level that are illegal federally and vice versa. That's not what is under discussion here. Those situations are not untenable, you can easily choose to not have a throwing star and be in compliance with both federal and state laws as no one is requiring you to have one. We are talking about making it illegal at the state level to do something the federal government mandates.

As an easy to understand hypothetical that would affect citizens beyond elected officials, let's say Indiana decided the draft was unconstitutional and made it illegal for any male to register with selective service. You are an 18 year old male faced with the decision to register or not. If you don't register, you can be arrested and charged federally. If you do register, you can be fined and arrested at the state level. Your legal situation is untenable, YOU CANNOT ABIDE BY THE LAW, no matter what choice you make you are doing something illegal.

You mean kind of like when you drive down the road? If you exceed the speed limit, you're violating the law (an infraction, but still a violation), however, if you impede the flow of traffic, you're violating the law as well.

I do see your position, however, the point that that fed law, the one that clearly DOES violate our Constitution, is one that we have a duty to resist, seems to have been missed in this discussion. This situation is not without precedent. There was a time shortly after the founding of our country, when a federal law was passed that the people found unConstitutional. They wondered, as I recall reading, if they'd traded one King George for another when Mr. Washington sent federal troops in to enforce compliance with Alexander Hamilton's whiskey tax.

If an elected official were to order troops to make war upon the people, would that be a lawful order or would it be treason, in the original and correct definition of that word?

The point may be moot anyway; correct me if I'm wrong, but the proposed bill would order state officials, not average citizens, to not comply with the so-called ACA, wouldn't it?

It seems to me that we are moving closer and closer to the point where peaceful, amicable secession is going to be our only real remedy.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JetGirl]

So state legislatures get to decide what is constitutional and what is not? Sounds like a total breakdown of society to me.

Sounds like "States Rights" to me.

 

[Trigger Time]

You mean kind of like when you drive down the road? If you exceed the speed limit, you're violating the law (an infraction, but still a violation), however, if you impede the flow of traffic, you're violating the law as well.

I do see your position, however, the point that that fed law, the one that clearly DOES violate our Constitution, is one that we have a duty to resist, seems to have been missed in this discussion. This situation is not without precedent. There was a time shortly after the founding of our country, when a federal law was passed that the people found unConstitutional. They wondered, as I recall reading, if they'd traded one King George for another when Mr. Washington sent federal troops in to enforce compliance with Alexander Hamilton's whiskey tax.

If an elected official were to order troops to make war upon the people, would that be a lawful order or would it be treason, in the original and correct definition of that word?

The point may be moot anyway; correct me if I'm wrong, but the proposed bill would order state officials, not average citizens, to not comply with the so-called ACA, wouldn't it?

It seems to me that we are moving closer and closer to the point where peaceful, amicable secession is going to be our only real remedy.

Blessings,
Bill

Secession sounds good to me.

 

[zippy23]

secession needs to happen.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa - let us remind the uppity Senator that fortunately for us - and her - the penalties for both treason and murder are clearly defined and serve to keep honest people honest. Let's not have others trying to change the definition of either crime lest it not benefit either of us.

Ballot, cartridge, jury, in precisely that order.

Let us hope civility still remains an option for our civil society.

I would much rather be civil.