Pelosi Says 'Are You Serious?' When Asked Constitutional Basis for Health Insurance M

[Bern80]

Taking on these For Profits is exactly what government exists for. Going after corporate corruption and greed is not socialism.

Does the constitution say bankers/lobbyists should run our government? They do. If you don't care about that stuff, I don't think you really care about the constitutionality of healthcare reform. You're just protecting robber barons and rich ceo's. The people who want to keep the status quo on healthcare are the ones that are crying unconstitutionality. The same people who defended the oil companies at $4 a gallon. That had a lot to do with the recession we went into. Lots of jobs lost when gas went that high. Now people don't have enough disposable income because of healthcare. Blablabla. Bottom line, this is exactly what government exists for.

Is tort reform constitutional?

Why is healthcare reform unconstitutional. Please explain the unconstitutionality of it.

Are lobbyists unconstitutional?

Answer the question then dumb bo. Is requiring people to purchase health insurance constitutional or not?

If you are on the other hand advocating that the constitution should be violated because of some warped notion of corporate greed well then you obviously can't be helped. Do you even know how 'profitable' insurance companies were on average last year?

Is requiring people to pay social security constitutional? I'm sure there are many many many good things liberals have done that you righties argued were unconstitutional. Medicare, labor laws, unions, tariffs, certain taxes.

My hunch is that this argument is a very weak one. Yes, I'm sure if you disected the constitution, you could make an argument that providing all of us with healthcare is constitutional.

If Fox News thought you had a good argument, they'd be arguing it. Maybe Glen Beck agrees with you. I'm sure he does.

No you porbably can't make a reaonable argument that government has the authority to provide healthcare. Article 10 of the constitution is very specific as to what the fed can do. The founders intended for it to be specific so that centralized government couldn't do whatever the hell it felt like. You prove to be chicken shit as always though as that was not the question. I guess if Pelosi can't answer it, it makes sense you can't but you can try again if you like.

Where in the constitution is the fed granted the authority to REQUIRE EVERYONE to purchase health insurance?

 

[William Joyce]

Nowhere, of course.

That may be the weakness: typically, the federal government gets around Constitutional limits on its power through taxing and spending, which (at least at present) are totally unlimited powers.

But when unconstitutional federal laws force individuals to do things, the same can file lawsuits. That is, they get standing.

 

[rightwinger]

Got a problem with the constitutionality of healthcare?

Take em to court....you will lose....but are welcome to try

 

[namvet]

[youtube]nUkzV8h3Wp0[/youtube]

typical liberal mis direction play​

 

[blu]

Think Progress » Pelosi Dismisses Tenther Reporter: ‘Are You Serious?’

lol @ bush era retards

 

[Emma]

*sigh*

Article I, section 8:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article I, section 9:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

Article II, section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


Health and Human Services is a Constitutionally-created department of the Executive. Therefore, Congress has the Constitutional authority to make all laws necessary for that department to carry out its mission ["The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."]. (health care reform, welfare, medicare, etc.)

Same for every other Cabinet department.

It's Constitutional.

 

[The T]

Let me see, where to begin with this one, well first of all this legislation has several problems when it comes to the constitution. among them the 14th, 10th, and 16th Amendments when it comes to mandates. If for example, mandates are constitutional and congress has unilmited powers under the constitution to mandate that people purchase healthcare coverage therefor taking away that choice then that sets up a conflict with Roe v. Wade in the 14th Amendment. If a women under Roe and the 14th right to choose is protected then ALL forms of choice when it comes to matters of health are as a matter of constitutional doctrine protected including the choice to purchase healthcare insurance. Unless the court is willing to overturn Roe and thats not likely that is one issue. One other issues with these mandates is this, the 16th Amendment states that the Govt. has basically unlimited power to lay and collect power on INCOME!!!. As the choice itself to purchase a good or service is NOT INCOME and cannot be considered as such and only will be when the good or service is purchased it again fails.

US Tax Court Penn Mutual Case

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution

Article 1 sec. 8
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

excise- A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege. A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property. In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the Income Tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes

Facts are even in Article 1, this power to tax on the actual purchase itself is constitutional, the actual mandating of making that choice does not exist in the article. So given that , then you would refer to to the 10th Amendment.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As Mass. and one other state do have mandates upon it's citizens rightly passed by their citizens for healthcare it becomes a state matter and a federal requirement would violate the 10th Amendment.

As you can see there are many many issue with this mandate in this healthcare bill and the CBO has as far back as 1992 said as much. The current healthcare bill advocates know that without these mandates the entire healthcare bill collapses , so it should prove an interesting fight.

Exactly. If the Income Tax is constitutional, then so is this.

Does the Congress have the right to compell commerce under threat of penalty? (Jail and Fine)?

 

[Emma]

Does the Congress have the right to compell commerce under threat of penalty? (Jail and Fine)?

Yup.

Is it Unconstitutional to Mandate Health Insurance? : HEALTH REFORM WATCH

Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.

O’Neill Institute » Legal Solutions in Health Reform » The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneil...ive_Summaries/Individual_Mandates_ExecSum.pdf

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/projects/reform/Papers/Individual_Mandates.pdf

It is manifest that health insurance deals with economic transactions and substantially affects interstate commerce. Although much of health care delivery is local, most medical supplies, drugs and equipment are shipped in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the antitrust laws, for instance, have been applied repeatedly to local hospital and physician activities.

In Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,12 the Court held that allegations of the “combination of factors” just noted “is certainly sufficient to establish a ‘substantial effect’ on interstate commerce” under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Even more directly relevant is that most health insurance is sold through interstate companies. All of the largest insurers in the country operate on a multi-state basis.

Although in many states the largest insurer is a locally owned and operated Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, these Blues plans contract with each other to accept Blues subscribers from any state into their provider networks. Regardless of how insurance is sold, it is well-established that matters relating to insurance substantially affect interstate commerce.13 In 1945, the Court (overruling its earlier precedent) ruled that insurance was interstate commerce subject to federal regulation.14 In response, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act15

Rather than a direct mandate enforced by civil fines, Congress might instead impose a tax on people who do not have health insurance, as Massachusetts has done, or provide a tax credit or other benefit for those who do have health insurance. Structured this way, the “mandate” would not be a direct regulation; instead, it would impose indirect regulatory effects from a specially crafted tax law. This alternative to a mandate is frequently distinguished as a “play or pay” option: either employers or individuals play by purchasing insurance, or they pay a tax.

Another to declare that federal regulation of insurance is not to be inferred or assumed unless federal laws do so explicitly. Mandating health insurance directly affects interstate commerce in several ways. Covering more people is expected to reduce the price of insurance by addressing free-rider and adverse selection problems. Free riding includes relying on emergency care and other services without paying for all the costs, and forcing providers to shift those costs onto people with insurance.

Adverse selection is the tendency to wait to purchase until a person expects to need health care, thereby keeping out of the insurance pool a full cross section of both low and higher cost subscribers. Covering more people also could reduce premiums by enhancing economies of scale in pooling of risk and managing medical costs. Thus, absent any special states’ rights concerns under the 10th Amendment (discussed below), it is clear and well-settled that Congress has the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

To be extra safe, in view of Rehnquist-Court decisions (such as Lopez and Morrison) Congress should make an explicit jurisdictional statement with express findings on the substantial effects that an insurance mandate is expected have on or in interstate commerce.

 

[Immanuel]

Despite the fact that an argument can be made for the constitutionality of HRC and not one that I would argue against, it was evident that the arrogant witch, Pelosi, did not know the answer to the question so she snubbed the reporter. She acted arrogantly, but seeing as how she is a politician, who like so many of the rest believes she is better than you and I, one can only expect such arrogance from her.

Immie

 

[Emma]

Despite the fact that an argument can be made for the constitutionality of HRC and not one that I would argue against, it was evident that the arrogant witch, Pelosi, did not know the answer to the question so she snubbed the reporter. She acted arrogantly, but seeing as how she is a politician, who like so many of the rest believes she is better than you and I, one can only expect such arrogance from her.

Immie

While I would like to hear more than just the bit of a clip that was included in the OP, I agree with you. I'm not sure if she simply didn't know the answer or felt it was too involved; either way, she shouldn't have brushed him off as she did. That was uncalled for.

 

[Immanuel]

Despite the fact that an argument can be made for the constitutionality of HRC and not one that I would argue against, it was evident that the arrogant witch, Pelosi, did not know the answer to the question so she snubbed the reporter. She acted arrogantly, but seeing as how she is a politician, who like so many of the rest believes she is better than you and I, one can only expect such arrogance from her.

Immie

While I would like to hear more than just the bit of a clip that was included in the OP, I agree with you. I'm not sure if she simply didn't know the answer or felt it was too involved; either way, she shouldn't have brushed him off as she did. That was uncalled for.

If it was too involved (and it is) she could have done pretty much what you did, "Article I, Section 8 & 9, Article II Section 2 among others and don't forget Supreme Court rulings on other issues. Thank you, now next question?"

Immie

 

[Emma]

Despite the fact that an argument can be made for the constitutionality of HRC and not one that I would argue against, it was evident that the arrogant witch, Pelosi, did not know the answer to the question so she snubbed the reporter. She acted arrogantly, but seeing as how she is a politician, who like so many of the rest believes she is better than you and I, one can only expect such arrogance from her.

Immie

While I would like to hear more than just the bit of a clip that was included in the OP, I agree with you. I'm not sure if she simply didn't know the answer or felt it was too involved; either way, she shouldn't have brushed him off as she did. That was uncalled for.

If it was too involved (and it is) she could have done pretty much what you did, "Article I, Section 8 & 9, Article II Section 2 among others and don't forget Supreme Court rulings on other issues. Thank you, now next question?"

Immie

Well, to be honest... if she said that, she'd still be attacked. It isn't something that can be explained in a sound bite. But I believe she really didn't know the answer, at least not well enough to explain it to the reporter.

 

[Navy1960]

Does the Congress have the right to compell commerce under threat of penalty? (Jail and Fine)?

Yup.

Is it Unconstitutional to Mandate Health Insurance? : HEALTH REFORM WATCH

Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.

O’Neill Institute » Legal Solutions in Health Reform » The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneil...ive_Summaries/Individual_Mandates_ExecSum.pdf

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/projects/reform/Papers/Individual_Mandates.pdf

It is manifest that health insurance deals with economic transactions and substantially affects interstate commerce. Although much of health care delivery is local, most medical supplies, drugs and equipment are shipped in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the antitrust laws, for instance, have been applied repeatedly to local hospital and physician activities.

In Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,12 the Court held that allegations of the “combination of factors” just noted “is certainly sufficient to establish a ‘substantial effect’ on interstate commerce” under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Even more directly relevant is that most health insurance is sold through interstate companies. All of the largest insurers in the country operate on a multi-state basis.

Although in many states the largest insurer is a locally owned and operated Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, these Blues plans contract with each other to accept Blues subscribers from any state into their provider networks. Regardless of how insurance is sold, it is well-established that matters relating to insurance substantially affect interstate commerce.13 In 1945, the Court (overruling its earlier precedent) ruled that insurance was interstate commerce subject to federal regulation.14 In response, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act15

Rather than a direct mandate enforced by civil fines, Congress might instead impose a tax on people who do not have health insurance, as Massachusetts has done, or provide a tax credit or other benefit for those who do have health insurance. Structured this way, the “mandate” would not be a direct regulation; instead, it would impose indirect regulatory effects from a specially crafted tax law. This alternative to a mandate is frequently distinguished as a “play or pay” option: either employers or individuals play by purchasing insurance, or they pay a tax.

Another to declare that federal regulation of insurance is not to be inferred or assumed unless federal laws do so explicitly. Mandating health insurance directly affects interstate commerce in several ways. Covering more people is expected to reduce the price of insurance by addressing free-rider and adverse selection problems. Free riding includes relying on emergency care and other services without paying for all the costs, and forcing providers to shift those costs onto people with insurance.

Adverse selection is the tendency to wait to purchase until a person expects to need health care, thereby keeping out of the insurance pool a full cross section of both low and higher cost subscribers. Covering more people also could reduce premiums by enhancing economies of scale in pooling of risk and managing medical costs. Thus, absent any special states’ rights concerns under the 10th Amendment (discussed below), it is clear and well-settled that Congress has the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

To be extra safe, in view of Rehnquist-Court decisions (such as Lopez and Morrison) Congress should make an explicit jurisdictional statement with express findings on the substantial effects that an insurance mandate is expected have on or in interstate commerce.

A judge Friday struck down Milwaukee's controversial paid sick day ordinance that mandates that private employers provide paid sick leave, ruling it was invalidly enacted and unconstitutional.

In a 38-page decision, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper wrote, "This is a case where the proposed ordinance's reach exceeds its grasp."

The decision will be appealed, said Amy Stear, state director of 9to5 the National Association of Working Women, the group that led the coalition of community organizations that put the measure on the November ballot. It passed with nearly 70% of the vote.

Only two other cities in the country, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have similar laws.
Judge finds city's sick leave mandate unconstitutional - JSOnline

First of all, all the provisions you posted in Article 1 Sec. 8 as a support mechanism for mandates are a misread at best. First of all, while congress has the power to tax and to regulate interstate commerce including those insurance companies doing business from state to state, the tax is is on the transaction i.e. income. It is not used as a method to compel an individual to purchase a good or service even under the general welfare clause. If this were the case. there would be no need for any other right in the constitution other than the commerce clause according to that read, because it would give congress unlimted power to make laws as it see's fit. Want an example, congress under that intrepretation can mandate though a tax penalty that Americans that do not drive a GM car will pay a tax penalty. That is why taxes are based on INCOME see 16th amendment. One thing further, taxes have to apply equally and if you set out to penalize those that do not have insurance with a tax and not tax those that do have insurance , you have violated the 16th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.

16th
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

by not being uniform this mandate also violates the equal protection claause in the constitution.
14th
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

While those that support these mandates may cling to their belief that the commerce clause covers all, or Article 1 Sec. 8 overrides all, in this case it doesn't. So yes is is unconstitutional and will be found a such..

Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress's reach.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - Constitutionality of Health Insurance Mandate Questioned - washingtonpost.com

 

[Emma]

The legal arguments provided in my post are pretty compelling. So I suppose we wait and see. There are enough assholes in this country that I'm sure the mandate will be challenged in court.

 

[Navy1960]

The legal arguments provided in my post are pretty compelling. So I suppose we wait and see. There are enough assholes in this country that I'm sure the mandate will be challenged in court.

As are mine Emma and I agree we will see. I see nothing wrong with a court challenge on these mandates at all. In fact if people want healthcare insurance coverage with a "public option" then other provisions can be enacted while such a challenge is being mounted. I think you will see many challenges to this bill on the mandates. I find it rather interesting that the mandates are being supported at all by anyone, other than those who know that if they are not there the whole bill collapses because it fails to bring in healthy people into the system to offset the those that will be brought into it that will be higher risk. I'll put it flatly in my mind if you support freedom of choice , you cannot support mandates as they are the same thing.

 

[Emma]

The legal arguments provided in my post are pretty compelling. So I suppose we wait and see. There are enough assholes in this country that I'm sure the mandate will be challenged in court.

As are mine Emma and I agree we will see. I see nothing wrong with a court challenge on these mandates at all. In fact if people want healthcare insurance coverage with a "public option" then other provisions can be enacted while such a challenge is being mounted. I think you will see many challenges to this bill on the mandates. I find it rather interesting that the mandates are being supported at all by anyone, other than those who know that if they are not there the whole bill collapses because it fails to bring in healthy people into the system to offset the those that will be brought into it that will be higher risk. I'll put it flatly in my mind if you support freedom of choice , you cannot support mandates as they are the same thing.

I'm not decided yet on whether I agree with mandated coverage, although I understand the reasons why it's necessary and that it is Constitutional.

 

[Navy1960]

The legal arguments provided in my post are pretty compelling. So I suppose we wait and see. There are enough assholes in this country that I'm sure the mandate will be challenged in court.

As are mine Emma and I agree we will see. I see nothing wrong with a court challenge on these mandates at all. In fact if people want healthcare insurance coverage with a "public option" then other provisions can be enacted while such a challenge is being mounted. I think you will see many challenges to this bill on the mandates. I find it rather interesting that the mandates are being supported at all by anyone, other than those who know that if they are not there the whole bill collapses because it fails to bring in healthy people into the system to offset the those that will be brought into it that will be higher risk. I'll put it flatly in my mind if you support freedom of choice , you cannot support mandates as they are the same thing.

I'm not decided yet on whether I agree with mandated coverage, although I understand the reasons why it's necessary and that it is Constitutional.

I suppose we will find out Emma if they are or not, if they are then I really feel bad for the supporters of the Roe decision because those will have to be reversed in order to allow for such mandates.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what's next?

the government mandating that we all buy a prescribed amount of fruits and vegetables every year or else have a tax penalty slapped on us?

How about mandated health club memberships and proof that you work out an hour a day or else get thrown in jail?

 

[Immanuel]

While I would like to hear more than just the bit of a clip that was included in the OP, I agree with you. I'm not sure if she simply didn't know the answer or felt it was too involved; either way, she shouldn't have brushed him off as she did. That was uncalled for.

If it was too involved (and it is) she could have done pretty much what you did, "Article I, Section 8 & 9, Article II Section 2 among others and don't forget Supreme Court rulings on other issues. Thank you, now next question?"

Immie

Well, to be honest... if she said that, she'd still be attacked. It isn't something that can be explained in a sound bite. But I believe she really didn't know the answer, at least not well enough to explain it to the reporter.

Of course she would be attacked, she is a politician. Everything they say will be attacked by someone. The fact is though that she acted arrogantly and quite rudely.

Immie

 

[Toronado3800]

that general welfare thing was used to get South Carolina back and opened a whole can of worms. If you agree Alabama isn't part of the Union then this is a valid discussion.