House votes to ban genetic discrimination

[tik 🪀✨]

Sources:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=69199
and
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This legislation is long overdue, especially for women who test positive for a genetic inclination towards breast cancer. I am happy the Bush Administration is positive about this bill, but I would like to see more protection against frivolous lawsuits. Your thoughts?

[A18]

Clearly ultra vires. Just as clearly, no one cares.

[tik 🪀✨]

Yeah, no one cares. But in case they do, it's here.

[Verily]

How many people want to bet that Coburn's "concerns" involve farm subsidies in Oklahoma or something equally unrelated?

Also, who voted against this bill?

[tik 🪀✨]

How many people want to bet that Coburn's "concerns" involve farm subsidies in Oklahoma or something equally unrelated?

Also, who voted against this bill?

Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6)
Edward Royce (R-CA 40)
Ronald Paul (R-TX 14)

who the hell knows why

[SPC]

How many people want to bet that Coburn's "concerns" involve farm subsidies in Oklahoma or something equally unrelated?

Also, who voted against this bill?

Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6)
Edward Royce (R-CA 40)
Ronald Paul (R-TX 14)

who the hell knows why

Maybe because it was uncontitutional because of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just a guess.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How many people want to bet that Coburn's "concerns" involve farm subsidies in Oklahoma or something equally unrelated?

Also, who voted against this bill?

Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6)
Edward Royce (R-CA 40)
Ronald Paul (R-TX 14)

who the hell knows why

Maybe because it was uncontitutional because of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just a guess.

A more likely reason is that Jeff Flake, Ed Royce, and Ron Paul are right-wing fools.

[SPC]

How many people want to bet that Coburn's "concerns" involve farm subsidies in Oklahoma or something equally unrelated?

Also, who voted against this bill?

Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6)
Edward Royce (R-CA 40)
Ronald Paul (R-TX 14)

who the hell knows why

Maybe because it was uncontitutional because of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just a guess.

A more likely reason is that Jeff Flake, Ed Royce, and Ron Paul are right-wing geniuses who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and don't try to make up ridiculous reasons to justify the contitutionality of this legislation

That's what I thought you said.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

That's what I thought you said.

And how again is this unconstitutional???

[SPC]

That's what I thought you said.

And how again is this unconstitutional???

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people

If you can show me one spot where the Constitution mentions genetic discrimination, I will rest my case. Until then, this will be a violation of the 10th Amendment.

[bullmoose88]

That's what I thought you said.

And how again is this unconstitutional???

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people

If you can show me one spot where the Constitution mentions genetic discrimination, I will rest my case. Until then, this will be a violation of the 10th Amendment.

-Commerce Clause Power.

And as long as 5 of 9 individuals in black robes continue to think so, your interpretation of what the constitution says and does not say is not relevant.

[bullmoose88]

Now I'm sure someone (cough) will come along and challenge the interpretation of the Commerce Clause...but if the Commerce Clause justifies some of the stuff the USSC says it does, then I can't see why it doesn't justify Genetic Discrimination bans in the work place.

[SPC]

Just because 5/9 people are idiots and think genetic discrimination laws are constitutional doesn't mean that it is.

[bullmoose88]

Just because 5/9 people are idiots and think genetic discrimination laws are constitutional doesn't mean that it is.

That's the kind of statement that is sure to change hearts and minds.

[Hatman 🍁]

Just because 5/9 people are idiots and think genetic discrimination laws are constitutional doesn't mean that it is.

Actually, as a matter of fact, it does make it so.

[SPC]

Just because 5/9 people are idiots and think genetic discrimination laws are constitutional doesn't mean that it is.

That's the kind of statement that is sure to change hearts and minds.

bullmoose, I know that you are being cynical, and I know that my opinion doesn't matter if the Court disagrees with it, but all I am saying is that even though the Court may not recognize it, most of the acts of Congress are unconstitutional. That is why the 17th Amendment needs to be burned. We need pro-state's rights Senators approving of justices sent to the Court. Without the 17th, the Court system is a waste of time and the two Houses of Congress become a redundancy. With two branches that are trying to get reelected, theres no stopping them from making every fascist law they can. That is why I voted for Badnarik and I will vote for Paul.

[tik 🪀✨]

The Congress may reflect what a majority of states have already passed. This page indicates that 41 states have enacted laws against genetic discrimination for insurers and 32 from it in the workplace. Passing it on a federal level helps standardize widely-accepted policies.

Of course, this is not always the case, but it is this time.

This bill passing in the House is significant because similar bills have passed in the Senate several times but were always buried in the House.

I support states rights, but in cases such as anti-discrimination I think having a blanket federal policy is better for everyone.