Pelosi: Buy Insurance Policy Or Go To Jail...

[Darkwind]

I honestly don't think there will be too much trouble locating anyone who will make the claim of being harmed by this bill, as these sorts of things have a way of finding themselves in the court one way or the other. Here is a pending example, Arizona should the bill that has passed both the House and the Senate here become law , which provides that no Govt. entity can deny an Arizona citizen the right to choose their own healthcare or mandate that they have it. That sort of legislation which is being considered in 6 other states as well will be just one example of how legislation like the healthcare bill will find itself in the court. Why? because you will have the all sides claiming harm on several levels. So again getting into the courts won't be much of an issue.

Well, I agree. I am just trying to figure out the path that will be taken if this legislation should actually become law.


I'd like an idea of where My research should go.

 

[Navy1960]

When asked by CNSNews.com on Thursday where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance, McCain said, “That is an excellent question and I’m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.”
CNSNews.com - McCain Says Health Care Bill Would Face Constitutional Challenge

“This is not some constitutional nitpick,” said Rivkin,
who has written a series of op-ed articles in major
newspapers assailing the proposal. “The framers went to a
great deal of trouble to ensure the federal government
has limited powers,” he told BNA, noting the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution says that powers not
specifically granted to the United States by the
Constitution are reserved to the states. “If government
can mandate this type of activity, there is nothing it
can't mandate,” said Rivkin, now a partner with Baker &
Hostetler LLP's Washington office.

Government's Commerce Clause Powers at Issue

In particular, Rivkin and other foes of the health
insurance mandate argue that, while the Constitution's
commerce clause gives Congress authority to regulate
economic activity in interstate commerce, the mandate to
buy insurance does not address any “activity” per se.

“The requirement would apply to people who aren't doing
anything,” noted Peter Urbanowicz, an attorney and health
care consultant with Alvarez & Marsal, Washington.
“Congress will have to explain how not buying insurance
and not seeking health care services implicates
interstate commerce.”

Asked how the insurance mandate is different from state
laws requiring automobile owners to obtain insurance,
Rivkin responded that such state requirements are limited
to those wanting the privilege to drive and added that
states have much broader police powers than the federal
government. In the case of the insurance mandate, “simply
being an American would trigger it,” he said.

Anti-Mandate Arguments ‘Surprising,’ Some Say

Supporters of the mandate maintain that Rivkin,
Urbanowicz, and other critics are misreading Supreme
Court rulings that have narrowed the government's
commerce clause authority in some recent decisions, but
have upheld it in others.

“The anti-mandate argument is a surprising interpretation
given the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on this,”
Steven D. Schwinn, an associate professor of
constitutional law at John Marshall Law School in
Chicago, told BNA. “The Supreme Court has given Congress
wide latitude to legislate anything that affects
interstate commerce.”
Insurance Mandate in Health Care Bills Raises Constitutional Concerns, Critics Say

Whay I think you will find this issue on mandates comming down to those that support the "public option" saying it is constitutional under the commerce clause because they know without the mandates the whole bill will collapse. On the other side, you have those that will argue a whole host of issues from the 10th, 14th, 16th, that mandates violate those amendments and even some who will make the claim that it even violates the 5th. There are many groups that are planning to mount constitutional challenges to this legislation should it be signed into law and In my opinion it will come from several directions. This is one reason why I said with the signing of this legislation it really just takes it from one branch of Govt. to the next so it will be some time before this matter is settled. I will pose an interesting question here.

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The mandates require a person to purchase or have healthcare coverage and as such if they do not they are taxed for not having said service. How then is a person, who by making the decision NOT to purchase healthcare coverage considered income? Or by definition is a citizen now income?

Penn Mutual Case - US Court of Appeals 3rd Cir.

It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.
It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.
It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.

I personally believe that any citizen can make a claim that these mandates violate the constitution and as such can make a claim as soon as this bill becomes law. I would not expect this legal fight to be easy or quick.