Judicial review isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution. It's inferred. It pre-existed the constitution in the colonies then states. It's a very necessary power, it guards against tyranny. I was wrong on the federal government's powers. They are enumerated. Of course the health care provision isn't there. Nor is funding for NASA. Doesn't say anything about an Air Force either. The point is that as a society develops its needs change and so government must act to meet those needs. This is where the enumeration bit steps in. If the federal government can construct authority which is construed as constitutional then it can go ahead and do so because the effect of the enumeration is nullified. In essence it can use particular powers to achieve policy such as heath care insurance, provided, as I said, it doesn't breach the consit
Well, exxxxccccuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssseeee me!!!!!!!!!!! You were the one complaining about responding to the OP. I thought it was important to you. The type of driver education is unimportant. All require some form to acquire a initial DL. Many require it following certain violations while many require it following certain violations to avoid points. In any case the reason it is required is because it has been demonstrated that, in the group that has taken the training, there are fewer accidents and fewer fatalities. But, as noted, the training is not focused on keeping you safe but on protecting everyone else from you.
see what a limited education does for you? SCOTUS didn't rule against or for health care, they merely indicated that it is a tax issue.
I admit the limited education, I am trying to do something about it. But it seems to me that the US Sup Ct didn't strike down the health care legislation, is that right?
No, it's not inferred either, or the founding fathers would not have had a cow when the court started doing it. But they did. They thought it was way over the line, and it was. There is a huge difference between passing legislation from the court, and saying there's a problem with the law. The court is beyond that limit. Right, and we have a provision for that, which you have already mentioned. Namely the amendment system. NASA, and the Air Force, should have been an Amendment. If enumeration is nullified, then we have agreed to allow the government unlimited power, which defeated the entire purpose of the constitution to begin with. Because you can justify nearly anything at all then. And by the way, this is exactly why we have such a problem with corruption. If they can justify benefits for voters, why not political backers? And that's exactly what's going on. That's why Hilliary can set aside millions in tax payer money, for the Woman's Hall of Fame, and then magically get inducted the following year. Again, the moment it's ok to go outside the binding limits of the constitution, you can do anything. Which is exactly what government is doing. You want to rationalize every breach of the constitutional limits? Fine. But you forfeit your right to complain when someone else breaches it in a way you don't like. You can no longer be intellectually consistent, and complain about big companies that back politicians, getting special government breaks and grants, and welfare. If you can ignore the constitution to provide welfare for one person, you can justify ignoring it to provide welfare for whomever you want. I hope I never see you complain about corrupt politicians on this forum ever again. You have invalidate that complaint forever.
I realise that judicial review is a hot issue, but the fact is it exists in the United States. The representation of judicial review is also an issue. I keep reading that it's “legislating from the bench” but that simply isn't true. I don't think the US Sup Ct can generate legislation, only review it. I'm wondering though if the fact that the US Sup Ct is equal with the other two branches of government rather than being subordinate to the legislature (as in the UK and Australia) is a factor that complicates the issue of judicial review. I think in the UK and I'm pretty sure the same applies in Australia, that where the supreme court in each country overrules legislation that the parliament can revise the legislation to get around the objections of the supreme court in each country. I'm not at all sure that's the case in the US. It seems to me that if the US Sup Ct says that something is unconstitutional then that's that and more than a re-draft is required. The Amendment system is a good way of keeping the Constitution updated. It's slow and cumbersome but probably intentionally so. But it might not always require an Amendment for certain legislation to be passed and to be valid, that could be the case with health care, for example, but perhaps that remains to be seen. I'll complain about corruption in politics, problem is I'll always have reason to do so. One good thing about the US system though is that it seems to me to be far more transparent than ours. The select committee system seems to work well for you, in ours it's a bit moribund but occasionally it can throw up a surprise. Having said that I'm amazed at the amount of pork-barrelling that goes on in US politics and the stuffing of legislation with irrelevant issues that appear to be about favouring a district or state or some sort of lobby group. I'm not rationalising any breaches of the constitution. Breaches will be found by the US Sup Ct when they are brought to its attention. You might view some political behaviour as unconstitutional but until the Sup Ct finds it then it's just your opinion.
Well in a way you are. You are claiming that if the USSC, does not find a health care law, as violating the constitution, then it isn't. Sorry, that's wrong. If the USSC does not find Obama Care in violation of the constitution, then the USSC is simply not following the constitution. It doesn't remain to be seen, or anything else. The constitution does not allow government the right to take money from one group of people, and give it to another group, for any reason. The founding fathers all understood this, and wrote as much. If you support that view, then you do except breaches of the constitution. In which case, complaining about corruption, is hypocrisy. "Having said that I'm amazed at the amount of pork-barrelling that goes on in US politics and the stuffing of legislation with irrelevant issues that appear to be about favouring a district or state or some sort of lobby group." Why? Your own discussion explains why this happens. You believe that it doesn't matter if government over steps it's constitutional authority (aka nullification of enumeration of powers). Then why are you surprised that if they use that over stepping to justify Obama Care, they also justify political favors and the such? Once you allow justification for taking money from one group of people, and giving it to another for health care.... why not for districts? Supportive lobbies? Why not for the Women's Hall of Fame? Why not anything? Again, when there are no limits, then there are no limits. The massive pork-barrelling and favors and lobby pay backs, to me is the natural logical result of this level of thinking that government is not bound by the hard, carved in stone, limits of the constitution. Again, we have an amendment process. If you want to add additional powers of the Federal Government to the constitution, there is a system to do that. In the 1920s, the public and the politicians, both were at least honest enough to know they had to pass a constitutional amendment to restrict alcohol, and equally had to pass another amendment to repeal that. What's the excuse today? Now people want to restrict smokes and guns, and offer all these programs, but now they just ignore the constitution..... why because the USSC said so? So as long as we have a supreme court that ignore the constitution, then government can do anything.
There is no law that can prevent a person from suicide. However we do have laws that prevent multiple suicide attempted individuals from buying a gun. They can still go buy one from an individual or steal one. If you have a family member who has suicide thoughts, keep your weapons secured where they can't get them. Also get them the help they need.
