cite a few cases like this?

Nuh uh.

*sigh*

Read the Constitution. Especially read the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment came 79 years after the Bill of Rights. Hence "at the beginning of this country" part of his post.

Hence, it's not relevant for him to answer my question with the statement "read the constitution" 100+ years after the 14th amendment.

I don't think you understand the Constitution if you don't appreciate the fact that the States have plenary police powers and the Feds have limited, enumerated rights.

States have plenary power. They can compel the purchase of health insurance or auto insurance or the purchase of a gun or whatever.

I do not know what you are thinking the 14th Amendment covers. Itt some posters made mention to the accurate statement that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights binding on the States.

Ok, so here, the 10th amendment comes into the discussion, which undoubtedly state's rights nuts will interpret as the constitution giving supreme and basically limitless power to states. Hint: it doesn't.

Secondly there is an example given that some states did not adhere to the bill of rights.
To which I reply with the above, to show that the given example is a moot point because the 14th amendment imposes the will of the federal government onto the states, and proves that state law is not the supreme law of the land, insofar as when it contradicts federal law. Another Hint: Read up on the ongoing Medical Marijuana debacle between states and feds, then let me know who the higher authority is in government.

Self explanatory.

The above is me informing phill that it is not relevant to give an example that does not apply any more, and that states have been subject to federal law for a longer period of time in American history than the amount of time they were not.

And then here you go saying I don't understand the constitution, specifically the bolded is troubling due to the fact that if you had actually read my earlier posts, you would have realized I knew exactly what the 14th amendment covered, and I was one of the posters that "made accurate mention" of the 14th amendment, and cited it for the specific purpose of throwing out an example given (at the top of this post) that has not been relevant in a very long time.

There's no way it will be struck down 7-2. Associate Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayer will vote to uphold irrespective of how the rest of the justices vote, so the worst Obama can lose is by a 6-3 majority.

I may have to admit that I called it wrong on this one. Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg telegraphed a reversal this past Friday when she hinted that the court was "sharply divided" on the Affordable Care Act. That is the kind of tea leaf a justice drops when he/she knows the decision has already been made (but not yet announced) and he/she is on the losing side. I started off this thread predicitng that the ACA (and the individual mandate) would be upheld by a 5-4 majority. After hearing what Bader-Ginsburg said on Friday, it's more likely that the individual mandate will be struck down by either a 5-4 or a 6-3 majority. (It's starting to "feel" like the Intrade folks have this one pegged just about right.)

As for the Dow significantly dropping once the decision is handed down, I suppose it depends on how many major pharmaceutical companies are components of the Dow. If there is more than one Dow component that is a major pharmaceutical company, the Dow might drop one or two hundred points. I seriously doubt that a reversal of the ACA will produce a 500+ point drop in the Dow.

I have a feeling the decision may be announced before COB Monday.

There is a chance Sotomayor would/could vote unconstitutional. Small chance mind you. I do agree that if it is struck down it is:
5-4>>>>6-3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>7-2

I agree that Federal law is the supreme law of the land. The 14th Amendment binds the Bill of Rights to the States. It also binds federal laws to the states.

However, the Congress can only make laws that are pursuant to their limited, enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution.

All other powers--including plenary police powers--are delgated to the States. You are correct that a State cannot pass a law that conflicts with a Federal statue or the Constitution.

The Affordable Care Act is a unconstitutional overreach of the Commerce Clause. It prescribes the compulsion of purchase of a private good from a private company.

Massachusetts--with its plenary powers--can constitutionally pass an
individual mandate.

Normally this barely comprehensible mess of contradictory statements wouldn't even merit a response, but since it apparently is representative of the general consensus among right wing media consumers, why not.

Uh, wat? If the individual mandate is upheld (don't worry, it won't be), it will be on the basis of several decades of commerce clause jurisprudence. I know you'll never, ever take the time to, you know, read decisions like Lochner, Raich, Lopez and the like, cause its mildly complex and takes time. And makes a complete mockery of Scalia, who is possibly the most hypocritical SCOTUS justice of all time.

Anyway, the rest of your post boils down to 'the court is apolitical when it does things I like, and oh wouldn't it be nice if we could just have it be 9-0 so silly liberals stop generating cognitive dissonance for me.'

Dude the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency while saying 'dont use this decision for anything else.' I think that was pretty much the moment when you should have concluded that the court is anything but apolitical.

1. You want the Supreme Court to be apolitical but you cite public opinion?

2. I honestly don't think you know what the phrase 'rule of law' means.

Oh, so you just typed something that is factually incorrect. Got it.

Fortunately the American public is almost entirely made up of constitutional law scholars so their opinion on this matter is quite meaningful.

Irrational exuberance itt