Is an Individual Health Insurance Mandate Constitutional?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is where you have problems. The supreme court is not allowed, per the constitution, to rule on subjects on which the constitution is silent. Everyone who took 4th grade US civics knows that the Supreme Court is designed to interpret the law. But when you have the supreme court interpreting situations based on past rulings, you in essence have the past supreme courts creating laws that later supreme courts interpret.

When you consider that most supreme court decisions have 2-4 justices dissenting, it becomes disturbing that past rulings are being canonized and used as a basis for future rulings.

The Constitution provides the framework for our laws. It is not a holy edict from omnipotent demigods who could foresee every possible situation or issue this country would face. Case in point - slavery remained legal for nearly a century after the Constitution was written. During the Dred Scott Decision, there was no specific language in the Constitution that made slavery clearly illegal - even though there were Prohibitionists at the time of the formation of this country. It wasn't until 13th Amendment was added that slavery was specifically ruled as illegal. There is a long tradition of constitutional amendments when necessary as in the case with civil rights or slavery. That is why the Constitution is a living document. It is not something stagnant.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Constitution provides the framework for our laws. It is not a holy edict from omnipotent demigods who could foresee every possible situation or issue this country would face. Case in point - slavery remained legal for nearly a century after the Constitution was written. During the Dred Scott Decision, there was no specific language in the Constitution that made slavery clearly illegal - even though there were Prohibitionists at the time of the formation of this country. It wasn't until 13th Amendment was added that slavery was specifically ruled as illegal. There is a long tradition of constitutional amendments when necessary as in the case with civil rights or slavery. That is why the Constitution is a living document. It is not something stagnant.

The point he was making was not about changing of the constitution/the ability to do so, he was saying that if something is not a law and if something is not spelled out in the law, then by default the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over such matters.

It was actually unconstitutional for the supreme court to rule in Texas v. White because secession is not something that the constitution covers. For the Supreme court to make a ruling, they in a sense creating law, which is not within their limits of power.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa