Supreme Court Issue: Can The Government MANDATE the purchase of a product?

[AVG-JOE]

If the Supreme Court upholds the argument that the government does NOT have the right to mandate the purchase of health insurance, can I use that as precedent in my case against the government mandating that I buy and use clothing when out in public?




All About Nude Hiking | Open Journey

 

[Avatar4321]

You have posed the question wrong. The Question is whether the Federal Government can mandate the purchase of a product.

And that, of course, presumes that the Supreme Court will even take up the issue. They could simply let the lower court ruling stand and say nothing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If the Supreme Court upholds the argument that the government does NOT have the right to mandate the purchase of health insurance, can I use that as precedent in my case against the government mandating that I buy and use clothing when out in public?

I think we're gonna have to find-out if there are any Judges heavily-invested (directly....or, thru a Lobbyist), first.

Sometimes, they make mistakes.

HERE​

 

[MikeK]

There is some very compelling precedent. The Militia Act of 1792 required every "able bodied male" to serve in the state militia and presented a list of firearms, one of which he was required to report to duty with. By effect, this would require said males to buy or otherwise acquire a gun.

Also, the Founding Fathers mandated that all merchant seamen purchase health insurance.
Government Health Care Was Championed By The Founding Fathers | Lake Minnetonka Liberty

These are two very strong hooks to hang Obama's bill on.

 

[Avorysuds]

Show me where there is a mandate to buy cloths...

Yeah, you failed...

 

[kyzr]

If the majority of states opt out of Obamacare and the courts say its unconstitutional, and the USSC says its illegal, which they will, and Congress doesn't fund it. It won't happen.

Lets all just look for a certain birth certificate.....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is some very compelling precedent. The Militia Act of 1792 required every "able bodied male" to serve in the state militia and presented a list of firearms, one of which he was required to report to duty with. By effect, this would require said males to buy or otherwise acquire a gun.

Also, the Founding Fathers mandated that all merchant seamen purchase health insurance.
Government Health Care Was Championed By The Founding Fathers | Lake Minnetonka Liberty

These are two very strong hooks to hang Obama's bill on.

Ok, then why didn't they? Oh, that's right they went the taxation route.

Nice try.

 

[rdean]

It's all about commerce. We currently pay between 40 billion and 50 billion a year for the health care of people who have no insurance by paying rising income and property taxes. It's called "government emergency health care", but it's really "soak the middle class".

Get it? We pay between 40 and 50 billion. For a "service".

The judge said there is no commerce.

Commerce is the exchange of goods and services from the point of production to the point of consumption to satisfy human wants. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information, or money between two or more entities.

Commerce: Definition from Answers.com

Could it be any more "simple"?

Republicans apparently have the answer. Close emergency rooms and let the fuckers die. If they aren't rich, who care if they live or die?

 

[bucs90]

Hmm. I actually find that argument interesting. It's true. The government will arrest you if you go into public without clothing. Sure, parents buy us clothing up to age 18, but, they aren't required to do that either. Thats an interesting case.

My belief, however, is that no, government cannot make us buy a product from a private company.

Lets use healthcare as the example. And how it violates the 4th and 5th amendment, in my opinion, as a former cop.

4th Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Only applies to governments or agents acting on behalf of government (contractors). If I do not want health insurance, but am mandated to have it, then I am then required by government to go through a medical screening against my own will, by a doctor acting on behalf of the government, or directly for the government. That is a "search" of my person, without warrant or probable cause of a crime, thus, illegal. Plain and simple. You can't search my body without a warrant or probable cause that I committed a crime. And no insurance will cover me without first doing a screening.

Second, the 5th. I have the right to remain silent. It is impossible to purchase health insurance without speaking. Thus, if I decide to remain silent for the remainder of my life, I will not be able to purchase health insurance. By practicing my 5th amendment right, I would violate Obamacare. It is unlawful.

But none of this matters now. Florida federal judge has ruled on it. Obamacare is illegal.

 

[gekaap]

There is some very compelling precedent. The Militia Act of 1792 required every "able bodied male" to serve in the state militia and presented a list of firearms, one of which he was required to report to duty with. By effect, this would require said males to buy or otherwise acquire a gun.

I don't think that the militia issue is a good comparison. The constitution gives explicit authority to Congress "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." In that way, Congress had explicit authority to require all able bodied men be part of the militia, and that those men obtain weapons toward that end. (Note, however, that the SD bill being discussed elsewhere would not fall under similar effect because it does not pertain to arming the militia, it pertains to arming all ordinary citizens). The challenges against the health care bill are based on the position that the constitution does not explicitly grant the power to require people to obtain health insurance. So one in a question of explicit power, and the other a question of implicit power.

 

[rdean]

Hmm. I actually find that argument interesting. It's true. The government will arrest you if you go into public without clothing. Sure, parents buy us clothing up to age 18, but, they aren't required to do that either. Thats an interesting case.

My belief, however, is that no, government cannot make us buy a product from a private company.

Lets use healthcare as the example. And how it violates the 4th and 5th amendment, in my opinion, as a former cop.

4th Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Only applies to governments or agents acting on behalf of government (contractors). If I do not want health insurance, but am mandated to have it, then I am then required by government to go through a medical screening against my own will, by a doctor acting on behalf of the government, or directly for the government. That is a "search" of my person, without warrant or probable cause of a crime, thus, illegal. Plain and simple. You can't search my body without a warrant or probable cause that I committed a crime. And no insurance will cover me without first doing a screening.

Second, the 5th. I have the right to remain silent. It is impossible to purchase health insurance without speaking. Thus, if I decide to remain silent for the remainder of my life, I will not be able to purchase health insurance. By practicing my 5th amendment right, I would violate Obamacare. It is unlawful.

But none of this matters now. Florida federal judge has ruled on it. Obamacare is illegal.

Isn't that funny? We do that anyway. Taxpayers pay more than 40 billion a year on "emergency rooms" and "free health care" that isn't free.

You yourself can go to any "emergency room" and receive treatment. The government just wants to spread out that cost.

Democrats just don't understand that for Republicans, it's all about soaking the taxpayers and protecting the companies.

Hey, I know a way to solve it. It works every time. Let's give another tax break to millionaires and billionaires. The "catch all" Republican solution for "everything".

 

[AVG-JOE]

Show me where there is a mandate to buy cloths...

Yeah, you failed...

Show me a public place where I won't get arrested and jailed for walking around naked and I'll show you one of the VERY FEW state sanctioned nude beaches in this country.

What else would you call it but a 'mandate' to buy and wear clothing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe just letting states opt out of the mandate is the answer. Of course any state that opted out would leave their in-state insurance companies with the problem of still having to cover pre-existing conditions cases, including those people who would only buy insurance once they got sick.

 

[Greenbeard]

4th Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Only applies to governments or agents acting on behalf of government (contractors). If I do not want health insurance, but am mandated to have it, then I am then required by government to go through a medical screening against my own will, by a doctor acting on behalf of the government, or directly for the government. That is a "search" of my person, without warrant or probable cause of a crime, thus, illegal. Plain and simple. You can't search my body without a warrant or probable cause that I committed a crime. And no insurance will cover me without first doing a screening.

Second, the 5th. I have the right to remain silent. It is impossible to purchase health insurance without speaking. Thus, if I decide to remain silent for the remainder of my life, I will not be able to purchase health insurance. By practicing my 5th amendment right, I would violate Obamacare. It is unlawful.

I have to ask, because people seem very confused on this point. You understand it's perfectly legal--you're "allowed"--to not purchase health insurance under the ACA, right? All that's different is that your income tax burden varies based on your insurance status, just as it varies based on home ownership or parenthood or any number of other things.

The reality, of course, is that for most of us, our income tax burden already varies depending on whether we have insurance. My employer compensates me an income I. However, the tax burden associated with that income will be larger if I is composed entirely of wages instead of being broken into a wages chunk, I-HB, and a health benefits chunk, I-w. To repeat: my income tax burden is higher if my compensation package is composed entirely of wages and my tax burden decreases if some of it is offered in the form of health benefits.

Turning economic incentives into some kind of criminal violation (explicitly ruled out in the statute) or search & seizure takes some serious mental gymnastics.

 

[G.T.]

You're not mandated to buy clothing like you'd be mandated to buy health-care, though. (and I'm not taking sides on the issue).

Because, noone's forcing you to show your face in public and you ARE allowed to walk the home naked, so that doesn't constitute a mandate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're not mandated to buy clothing like you'd be mandated to buy health-care, though. (and I'm not taking sides on the issue).

Because, noone's forcing you to show your face in public and you ARE allowed to walk the home naked, so that doesn't constitute a mandate.

No one is mandated to buy clothing; it is not illegal to remain naked in your own abode. When you venture out, you expose yourself (pun intended) to arrest. Not for not buying clothes, but for violating a law.

Can the government require gun locks? Require a homeowner to have garbage collected? Deny the right any dog can exercise and pee on a fire hydrant?

IMHO the libertarian/TP movement has crossed over the fringe to absolute foolishness.

 

[gekaap]

4th Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Only applies to governments or agents acting on behalf of government (contractors). If I do not want health insurance, but am mandated to have it, then I am then required by government to go through a medical screening against my own will, by a doctor acting on behalf of the government, or directly for the government. That is a "search" of my person, without warrant or probable cause of a crime, thus, illegal. Plain and simple. You can't search my body without a warrant or probable cause that I committed a crime. And no insurance will cover me without first doing a screening.

If you really are a former cop, then you should be ashamed of your very poor understanding of the 4th amendment, and your community is probably safer without you on patrol. The 4th amendment protects people from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The reasonableness of a search and/or seizure is dependent on several factors, including the scope and degree. For example, if you are driving down the road, a traffic stop, being a seizure for the 4th amendment's purposes, cannot be reasonable unless the officer has a solid, objective reason to believe you have committed a crime. Usually, this means he has to actually see you fail to stop for a light, or whatever he will claim you did wrong. A traffic stop does not pass the reasonableness test if the officer only thinks that you failed to stop, because he could see you on the far end of the intersection going faster than one might expect for a car starting at a standstill 15 feet earlier. A traffic stop is not reasonable if the cop pulls you over with a mistaken, even if well intended, belief as to how the law applies to the given situation. Reasonableness can also be determined based on "reasonable suspicion" under specific circumstances, and those circumstances include the amount of public interest there is in a police officer confronting the suspected behavior. Also, the scope of the reasonable suspicion stop must be narrow and usually requires that the person could then turn around and leave at any time on their own will.

The point of this all is that the health care bill cannot be deemed unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds because the reasonableness of the "search" that you are arguing would first depend on establishing whether or not there is a legitimate government interest being served by the law. If there is none, then that already renders the law unconstitutional. However, if there is, then that legitimate interest then translates into reasonableness for the "search" inasmuch it maintains the narrow scope of being related to your medical history and is applicable to your treatment.

Furthermore, the scenario you paint of the doctor being an agent of the government is a very difficult one to maintain. Even if we agree that obtaining health insurance in accordance with a government mandate suffices as a limitation on liberty (a position that would be necessary in order to maintain a 4th amendment complaint, thought would really be a stretch), any secondary efforts that need to be exerted toward that end do not translate as government actions. The money you pay would not constitute a tax by government, at least for legal purposes. The insurance company itself will not constitute a government agent, because they are only providing you with a service, just like car insurance companies are not agents of the government who are searching you when you have to provide a driving history. If you have to see a doctor in order to satisfy your health insurance, he is acting only in his capacity as a health care provider, and his actions, including taking medical history, separated from any government action by many degrees.

Thus, in conclusion, any claim that there is any 4th amendment violation in the health care bill requires a great strain and goes against established constitutional understanding.

 

[konradv]

If the Supreme Court upholds the argument that the government does NOT have the right to mandate the purchase of health insurance, can I use that as precedent in my case against the government mandating that I buy and use clothing when out in public?




All About Nude Hiking | Open Journey

How about that South Dakota story where a law was being considered that would mandate all adults over 21 to own a gun? Seems it would be struck down for the same reason the FL judge gave in the health care case!

S. Dakota Lawmakers Draft Bill Mandating Gun Ownership : It's All Politics : NPR

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/153417-the-commerce-clause-and-the-all-powerful-congress.html#post3276488

Watch the video in the above link.

You will see that the current interpretation of the commerce clause is the single greatest threat to our freedoms.

 

[Sallow]

There is some very compelling precedent. The Militia Act of 1792 required every "able bodied male" to serve in the state militia and presented a list of firearms, one of which he was required to report to duty with. By effect, this would require said males to buy or otherwise acquire a gun.

Also, the Founding Fathers mandated that all merchant seamen purchase health insurance.
Government Health Care Was Championed By The Founding Fathers | Lake Minnetonka Liberty

These are two very strong hooks to hang Obama's bill on.

Yep.

And it's what gave rise to the Second Amendment. It was turned into a "right" to defend your country. To bad it's gotten so perverted today.