The Left and The Commerce Clause

[LeftofLeft]

Affordable Healthcare is something all US citizens can benefit from.....but there are many ways to achieve that. It is not the intention or goal of Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act that is under attack but the means with which it was done; in particuar, using the The Commerce Clause to push it through as well as the provisions. The Commerce Clause was also used to get Roe v. Wade pushed through.

The Left is becoming a big fan of The Commerce Clause. My only hope is that Conservatives take note and begin to be a fan of the Commerce Clause as well. For example, a Republican President and Republican Congress come up with an Affordable Energy Act that will lessen our dependence on Global Foreign Oil. This will include Oil companies meeting behind closed/locked doors with Republican Leaders to write the legislation. This legislation will result in further tax credits and incentives for the Oil companies to diversify their energy offerings, reduce regulations, increase domestic drilling (on shore, offshore, public and private lands), open up ANWAR. Also, Americans might be mandated to purchase "credits" or fossil energy futures contracts to offset risk of being dependent on energy produced from volatile regions in the world. With these mandated credits or contracts Americans purchase, it would be reported to the IRS as credits or tax deductions for the individual taxpayer?

Can everyone imagine the uproar from The Left? What if it gets appealed to the SCOTUS and it sides in favor of a Republican driven Affordable Energy Act under The Commerce Clause? LIke affordable Healthcare, what American could not benefit from an Affordable Energy? Live by the Commerce Clause to further your cause.......but don't be shocked when the Commerce Clause is used to push an agenda or outcome using ways and means that are at variance with your views or position.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Two things.

1) The intention of the Affordable Care Act is what was under attack, and has always been under attack.
2) Oil is not the same as health care.

 

[Dr.House]

The ACA mandate was struck down under the Commerce Clause as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause...

It was in Roberts opening statement and part of the ruling...

 

[waltky]

Clear as mud...

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It
June 28, 2012 - In his deciding opinion in the cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), Chief Justice John Roberts first says the mandate in the law requiring individuals to buy health insurance is not a tax.

Then he says it is a tax. He upholds the individual mandate—as a tax, not a penalty—as the law of the land. But then says it would not be "unlawful" for Americans to violate the law's mandate that they "shall" buy health insurance--as long as they are willing to pay the "penalty" for not obeying the law.

Roberts first examines the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits Americans from bringing suit against Obamacare at this time. “The Anti-Injunction Act provides that ‘no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed,’” Roberts explains. “Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit,” says Roberts. “The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise,” Roberts continues. "The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits ‘for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’ Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’ “Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ‘taxes,’” said Roberts.

Roberts thus concludes that because Congress calls the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate a “penalty” not a “tax,” the "penalty" therefore is not a "tax." “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act,” writes Roberts. “The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.” Got it? The chief justice of the United States says the penalty for not obeying the individual mandate is not a tax, it's a penalty. Therefore, the court can rule on it at this time. Remember: Roberts says, It's not a tax, it's a penalty.

Roberts then rules that the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, cannot be used to justify a law forcing people to buy health insurance because people who are not buying health insurance are not engaging in commerce that can be regulated. "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'" That's pretty straightforward: Commerce is commerce. Not engaging in commerce is not commerce.

MORE

 

[Abishai100]

Lemonade

We could try to reorient political talk about this issue towards culture. I know that sounds obvious or even weird, but the Left relies on its influence over culture and 'street-talk.'

Use of the Commerce Clause seems to reflect a general traffic-related focus on profit contracts.

This summer, kids will open consumer-tradition lemonade stands in the suburbia outlier regions of New York City, areas considered to be residences of the affluent. These lemonade stands are actually behavioral symbols of capitalism in lifestyle.

Why not talk about the Commerce Clause in reference to campaign finance reform?






SubUrbia film - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia