Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? It won't end abortion, it will just put it back to the states to decide.
Is Obamacare equivalent to Roe v. Wade, in that it nationalizes health care? Should we leave it alone or overturn it, putting health care decisions back to the states to decide?
Some states, like Massachusetts, may go the route of social medicine, while others may not. Likewise, some states may ban abortion, while others may not.
The economies of scale are different within a state vs. within a nation. Decisions made within a state are different than when made within a nation.
-PJ
“I’ll ask you the same question I asked someone else last night?
Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? It won’t end abortion, it will just put it back to the states to decide.
Is Obamacare equivalent to Roe v. Wade, in that it nationalizes health care? Should we leave it alone or overturn it, putting health care decisions back to the states to decide?
Some states, like Massachusetts, may go the route of social medicine, while others may not. Likewise, some states may ban abortion, while others may not.
The economies of scale are different within a state vs. within a nation. Decisions made within a state are different than when made within a nation.
-PJ”
You are supporting totalitarianism on the state level by looking to the 10th amendment, when even by the state constitutions and the spirit therein such a thing as that would be unthinkable. Paul A. Rahe demonstrates this quite well:
“Here is the first paragraph of the preamble to that Constitution:
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life; and whenever these great objects are not obtained the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness.
It needs to be read in conjunction with the first article of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (which follows immediately upon the preamble):
All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
There are two things worth noticing – the emphasis on “natural rights and the blessings of life” in the first paragraph of the preamble and the list of “certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights” in the first article of the Declaration of Rights – among which can be found the right “of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property.”
I would submit that these two passages dovetail neatly with the argument I made about the ends of government in my earlier post, quoted at length above; and I think that you can easily see that Romneycare – which presupposes that the government of Massachusetts can dictate to its citizens how they are to spend their own money – is in breach of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. How, I would ask, can the property left to us after we have paid our taxes be in any respect our own if the state has the right to tell us how to spend it? And if the state can do this in one instance, what is there to prevent it from doing so in other instances?”
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Is-Romneycare-Constitutional
Either way, all your arguments are made void when we acknowledge the simple fact that RomneyCare is perpetually bailed out by the federal government. Without the support of other states, RomneyCare wouldn’t exist, and this was done wholly without my consent down here in Texas, or yours in whatever state you are in.