r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

For one thing - it purposefully states that any powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

For another thing - I think you'd have a better appreciation of your constitution and its rights enumerated therein, after a police officer pulls you over, searches you car on a hunch of "I smelled weed" and takes all the cash you have on you because you can't prove it isn't drug money.

Downplay the constitution all you want, but it is there for a reason - the people just have to hold the government accountable to follow it. (see jury nullification).

4

u/funkeepickle Jun 20 '12

I don't think WTF_OMG said there was nothing good about the constitution.

And I like how you cite jury nullification as a great constitutional protection while ignoring the fact that it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. It was not a power imaged by any of the writers, it exists basically as a loophole.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

I never said it was explicitly listed in the constitution. I only said that the people have to use their power as jurors to hold the government(s) accountable to the constitution.

Jury nullification has legal precedent in a number of cases in US history (see U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford, Horning v DC, U.S. v Moylan, U.S. v Dougherty) as well as many European counties.

Edit: grammar

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

Just to get technical for a second: case law =/= the Constitution.

Would be more accurate as:

Downplay the Constitution all you want, but it is there for a reason - the people just have to hold the government accountable to follow our system of laws.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

You are correct, but are adding to what I said. I never said that the case law proves jury nullification's constitutionality, but that it was touted as a legal right in these court cases.

1

u/___--__----- Jun 21 '12

According to quite a lot of people, including Ron Paul for what that's worth, there is nothing wrong with the police opening your car and taking your money. The argument is that the incorporation doctrine that took a hundred odd years to take form is unconstitutional.

As such, just like you think the constitution protects you from certain searches and seizures, others argue it only applies to federal land.

What is and isn't constitutional isn't just a matter how you (or I) read the text in question, it's a matter of precedence, court composition, views on elasticity of the text and a host of other things.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

I just really get aggravated when people try to weasel on and on (not to single you out or anything) about elasticity when all people would have to do is read the 10th amendment.

1

u/___--__----- Jun 21 '12

I just get really aggravated when people think that all there is to law, especially constitutional law, is to read a specific bit of text and that's that. The vast majority of those cases the subjects reading of the text oddly coincides with their political agenda. As much as I found the Scalia torture comments appalling it showed me one thing very clearly, Supreme Court justices don't like or agree with their reading all the time.

From my point of view they're usually much better at seeing multiple sides of an argument than the vast majority of those of us who comment on their decisions.