Missourian
Diamond Member
I think a lot of the problem in this thread is the thinking of Constitutionality as only applying to the Bill of Rights as a function of Individual Rights versus Federal Powers.
States have powers that are denied the Federal Government.
I study mostly 2nd Amendment cases, so that is the example that comes to mind.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated local background checks as a prerequisite to a firearm purchase.
In Printz v. U.S., that provision was deemed unconstitutional. The Federal Government had overstepped it's authority by compelling state law enforcement to execute federal law.
So, a federally mandated local background check is unconstitutional.
But that in no way inhibits the states from enacting laws that require local background checks.
Unconstitutional for the Federal Government, Constitutional for the State Government.
Yes...and no.
There are a lot of things the States can do that the Feds can't, true. But merely finding that the Feds lack the power to do something, absent any further finding, does not mean it's automatically okay for the states. There is still the question of whether it is a power of the states or a right reserved to the people.
In the case of Printz, it was made clear that it is, in fact, a state power. So your analysis there is correct. But in the question before the courts in the context of the thread's OP, the health care mandate, whether the states have the power to enact or enforce them is not part of the analysis. So the question of whether the States have separate grounds to mandate a purchase that is not tied to a separate State privilege would still be undecided.
A subtle distinction, but an important one. Power is balanced throughout the system three ways. The three branches of government, and the three levels of Federal, State and People. Knocking out one still leaves the question of the other two, unless clearly indicated otherwise.
I agree, but it is possible for a law to be unconstitutional on the federal level, but not unconstitutional for the states.
Even in regard to health care, is it very possible that the law will be deemed unconstitutional under the commerce clause, yet that ruling would not effect the constitutionality of the same program run by a state government.