Healthcare reform passed in the USA

Status
Not open for further replies.
JPINFV said:
...but your argument fails to prove that people can ignore the law when it is personally expediate without sanction. The day in/day out activity of getting in and out of a car on the driver's side is not illegal because day in/day out people aren't doing it in an unsafe manner.
Click to expand...

Source!
 
Source for what? That getting into and out of a vehicle on the driver's side is not illegal provided that it is done in a safe manner or source that your argument that the Congress doens't have to follow the constitution because the law in some instances isn't enforced and the argument that you've made hinges on it being always illegal to get into and out of your car on the side of the curb?
 
JPINFV said:
Source for what? That getting into and out of a vehicle on the driver's side is not illegal provided that it is done in a safe manner or source that your argument that the Congress doens't have to follow the constitution because the law in some instances isn't enforced and the argument that you've made hinges on it being always illegal to get into and out of your car on the side of the curb?
Click to expand...

You said

The day in/day out activity of getting in and out of a car on the driver's side is not illegal because day in/day out people aren't doing it in an unsafe manner.
Click to expand...

You are making a claim that requires observation, assessment, data collection, data analysis and computation. Not to mention error correction and analysis. Thus, I ask for a source for this.
 
Are you admitting to routinely opening your car door in an unsafe manner as to imped traffic? While there is no doubt in my mind that it does happen (hence people getting their door rammed off), there is a very strong a priori argument that the vast vast vast majority of drivers and passengers do not open their doors in an unsafe manner (and thus in compliance of the law) because they don't want to pay to replace their car door. Where is your evidence or argument that it is wide spread practice to violate this law since the act of opening a door of the side of traffic is not, on its own, a violation of the law.
 
JPINFV said:
Are you admitting to routinely opening your car door in an unsafe manner as to imped traffic? While there is no doubt in my mind that it does happen (hence people getting their door rammed off), there is a very strong a priori argument that the vast vast vast majority of drivers and passengers do not open their doors in an unsafe manner (and thus in compliance of the law) because they don't want to pay to replace their car door. Where is your evidence or argument that it is wide spread practice to violate this law since the act of opening a door of the side of traffic is not, on its own, a violation of the law.
Click to expand...

Back to the point at hand, you asked for a source for a claim I made, I provided it. This isn't the right forum for debating traffic and parking laws.
 
No... but when the law is used as evidence in an argument to a seperate point, that argument and the associated evidence does come under the purview of the thread.
 
JPINFV said:
No... but when the law is used as evidence in an argument to a seperate point, that argument and the associated evidence does come under the purview of the thread.
Click to expand...

Sir, you asked for a source. I provided it. I only did exactly as you asked.
 
Your source is not supporting your argument as it clearly states that it is not agaisnt the law to open the door on the traffic side of the car.

Edit to bring this back on topic:

Since opening up car doors on the traffic side of the vehicle is not illegal. What other laws are we allowed to ignore because we don't like them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JPINFV said:
Your source is not supporting your argument as it clearly states that it is not agaisnt the law to open the door on the traffic side of the car.
Click to expand...

Except for the part that it does.
 
...except for that part that dictates that it is only illegal if done in an unsafe manner. Hence the opening of a car door on the traffic side of a vehicle is not illegal when done in a safe manner, and thus is not people ignoring the law. Please cite a law that is not enforced because people don't like it.
 
JPINFV said:
...except for that part that dictates that it is only illegal if done in an unsafe manner. Hence the opening of a car door on the traffic side of a vehicle is not illegal when done in a safe manner, and thus is not people ignoring the law. Please cite a law that is not enforced because people don't like it.
Click to expand...

Says it's illegal with one exceptions. That is the plain reading of it. But I guess you're a lawyer?
 
Err... that's a pretty big exception. How often do you open your door in an unsafe manner or in such a manner as to imped traffic?
 
Nowhere in CVC 22517 do I see any provision that allows one to simply ignore the law because you don't feel like following that law. Ignoring the law has nothing to do with whether the activity is legal or illegal. I'll quote it again for your reading pleasure:

CVC 22517 said:
22517. No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side
available to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so and
can be done without interfering with the movement of such traffic,
nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle
available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than
necessary to load or unload passengers.
Click to expand...
In any event, it is illegal to force a person into a contract and fine them if they don't. It's an offense to Liberty to do so...

Furthermore, if this law is designed to only provide healthcare to citizens and lawful permanent aliens, I wonder how that part of the law can survive a 14th amendment challenge by illegal aliens working in the US?

While the Healthcare system does need fixing, it is not for Congress to overstep it's Constitutional Authority to "fix it". If "We The People" need a "fix" for this so badly that Congress must go to that extreme position, then "We The People" need to put into place a Constitutional Amendment to allow that to happen.

Securing the Blessings of Liberty also means allowing for failure.

I guess you feel like being required to buy a Cadillac Escalade... and you can only afford a used Ford Pinto... and you will be penalized for not buying that Escalade every year that you don't buy it.

Oh, and don't try to compare this to auto insurance. If a person doesn't drive a car, NO STATE requires that person to carry auto insurance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Akulahawk said:
Oh, and don't try to compare this to auto insurance. If a person doesn't drive a car, NO STATE requires that person to carry auto insurance.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and if you don't have health you won't need health insurance. ;)
 
LondonMedic said:
Indeed, and if you don't have health you won't need health insurance. ;)
Click to expand...

*sigh* I'll say it again since people NOT from the US (and apparently democrats FROM the US) don't get it:


A STATE government can require auto insurance. The FEDERAL government can NOT.


And at that, not all states require liability insurance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Linuss said:
A STATE government can require auto insurance. The FEDERAL government can NOT.
Click to expand...
So why don't the states? I can understand that some of the southern states still believe in eugenics but there are some enlightened ones.

(On that subject, why isn't Medicare/Medicaid a state responsibility?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Linuss said:
Constitution be darned, right?
Click to expand...

There have been worse affronts to the Constitution... and that's assuming that the healthcare reform would even qualify as such.
 
Linuss said:
*sigh* I'll say it again since people NOT from the US (and apparently democrats FROM the US) don't get it:


A STATE government can require auto insurance. The FEDERAL government can NOT.


And at that, not all states require liability insurance.
Click to expand...

Except for the part that they just did and every constitutional scholar says it's legal.

So you think that the Federal government offering flood insurance is also illegal? I bet the people who live in flood planes and who have no options would disagree.
 
Since this has degraded into a debate out traffic laws, this thread is closed.
lock.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top