U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare


Terrific find Skull Pilot. Let's post the money paragraphs from that excellent essay:

. . . .Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that "taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.

All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida's constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress's health-care intrusion.

As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers' attempt to restrain government under Article I. . . . .

I wish I could rep you for this, but I have to spread some more rep around first.
 
One important point is that the Commerce Clause has always covered regulating active commerce - not compelling inactive people to engaging in it.
 
One important point is that the Commerce Clause has always covered regulating active commerce - not compelling inactive people to engaging in it.

Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie
 
One important point is that the Commerce Clause has always covered regulating active commerce - not compelling inactive people to engaging in it.

Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.
 

Do I have to read it to you?

It is a short simple article stating the case for states to sue the federal government over this abomination of a bill.

We will have to post what we read, I will copy and paste real slow, so that some of them can understand

American courts don't give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.
Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn't be able to trample the Constitution as well.
Even then most of them will lie and spin :cuckoo:
 
One important point is that the Commerce Clause has always covered regulating active commerce - not compelling inactive people to engaging in it.

Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?
 
Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

If you are asking me, I don't think I have ever stated that it is unconstitutional, although, I would love it if SCOTUS ruled it as such.

Immie
 
And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

If you are asking me, I don't think I have ever stated that it is unconstitutional, although, I would love it if SCOTUS ruled it as such.

Immie

But if you don't think it's unconstitutional, why would you want SCOTUS to rule that it is? Or maybe you do think it is unconstitutional and you just haven't said so? Help me out here.
 
I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

If you are asking me, I don't think I have ever stated that it is unconstitutional, although, I would love it if SCOTUS ruled it as such.

Immie

But if you don't think it's unconstitutional, why would you want SCOTUS to rule that it is? Or maybe you do think it is unconstitutional and you just haven't said so? Help me out here.

Why do I want them to rule that it is? Because it is bad law. Do I think they will? No. Do I think that those who are attempting to get it overturned have any hope at all of succeeding no.

One need not think that a bad law is unconstitutional in order to hope that it gets over turned.

Immie
 
Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

I am not a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer, so I depend on legal minds I trust to interpret this stuff for me. And I don't trust one or two opinions but look for many before settling on a conclusion of probability.

Here I believe is a pretty good consensus of what I am deciphering from a plethora of opinions out there:

The language on page 378 of the bill that passed:‘‘
"(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.—
It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment,
or conference report that would repeal or otherwise
change this subsection."

We better hope that this is unconstitutional. If any legislature is allowed to restrict the legislative powers of the Congress, as mandated by the Constitution, without amending the Constitution, then we no longer have a representative republic but a totalitarian government..

The 10th Amendment says:“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.”

According to many of the pending lawsuits, the new law violates the rights of the people and the states by:
1. imposing a new mandate on individuals to obtain health insurance or face a penalty and
2. imposing on the states new costs by expanding Medicaid, which is a federal-state program.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also is filing suit arguing that the law violates the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation. “The taxing and spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies,” the group said in the statement.

Congressman Ted Poe of Texas intends to file legislation as soon as possible to prohibit any federal funding from being appropriated by Congress to fund the individual mandates. He said "I am filing legislation. . . . that will prevent the implementation and enforcement of these unconstitutional mandates included in the Senate healthcare bill. . . .Nowhere in our Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to force us to buy anything, whether that is health insurance, a new car or a box of government approved donuts."

AGs. I think from 12 states now will challenge the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill on grounds of the commerce clause, states rights, and individual freedoms. To date, the participating states are Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota. As all these people, supported by capable legal teams, are members of the bar in their respective states, they can’t all be ignorant of the merits of their respective cases.

For me it is an instinctive reaction to resist my government telling me that I have to do anything in matters that do not infringe on any rights of any others. That to me is a violation of the spirit and intent of the entire U.S. Constitution.
 
If you are asking me, I don't think I have ever stated that it is unconstitutional, although, I would love it if SCOTUS ruled it as such.

Immie

But if you don't think it's unconstitutional, why would you want SCOTUS to rule that it is? Or maybe you do think it is unconstitutional and you just haven't said so? Help me out here.

Why do I want them to rule that it is? Because it is bad law. Do I think they will? No. Do I think that those who are attempting to get it overturned have any hope at all of succeeding no.

One need not think that a bad law is unconstitutional in order to hope that it gets over turned.

Immie

I do think it's bad law in its policy, but the COTUS doesn't care whether a policy is smart. Intelligence (or lack thereof) in policy is a legislative function.

Policy comes and goes, but what the COTUS protects is the balance of power and the framework of governance. I simply can't agree that it would be a good thing to apply that kind of activism and hope it's declared unconstitutional under a fiction just to get rid of the policy when what will be affected is much, much more. The bench is already too politicized.
 
But if you don't think it's unconstitutional, why would you want SCOTUS to rule that it is? Or maybe you do think it is unconstitutional and you just haven't said so? Help me out here.

Why do I want them to rule that it is? Because it is bad law. Do I think they will? No. Do I think that those who are attempting to get it overturned have any hope at all of succeeding no.

One need not think that a bad law is unconstitutional in order to hope that it gets over turned.

Immie

I do think it's bad law in its policy, but the COTUS doesn't care whether a policy is smart. Intelligence (or lack thereof) in policy is a legislative function.

Policy comes and goes, but what the COTUS protects is the balance of power and the framework of governance. I simply can't agree that it would be a good thing to apply that kind of activism and hope it's declared unconstitutional under a fiction just to get rid of the policy when what will be affected is much, much more. The bench is already too politicized.

We've been living with judicial activism for decades and now you want to stop it?

Immie
 
But if you don't think it's unconstitutional, why would you want SCOTUS to rule that it is? Or maybe you do think it is unconstitutional and you just haven't said so? Help me out here.

Why do I want them to rule that it is? Because it is bad law. Do I think they will? No. Do I think that those who are attempting to get it overturned have any hope at all of succeeding no.

One need not think that a bad law is unconstitutional in order to hope that it gets over turned.

Immie

I do think it's bad law in its policy, but the COTUS doesn't care whether a policy is smart. Intelligence (or lack thereof) in policy is a legislative function.

Policy comes and goes, but what the COTUS protects is the balance of power and the framework of governance. I simply can't agree that it would be a good thing to apply that kind of activism and hope it's declared unconstitutional under a fiction just to get rid of the policy when what will be affected is much, much more. The bench is already too politicized.

We aren't really debating 'bad law' here though are we? There have always been good and bad laws in our society that are generally rectified by demands of the people who are approving or offended by them.

Constitutional Law is something quite different and effects the unalienable, civil, and legal rights of every man, woman, and child in the USA. It is NOT the prerogative of the courts and SCOTUS to rule on whether there should or should not be healthcare reform however or what the final legislation should look like.

Legislation that violates rights, however, which the healthcare reform bill does, should not be allowed to stand. It is absolutely the prerogative of the lower courts and SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of the portions of that bill that trample on the people's individual rights.

We had best hope that there are still judges of integrity sitting on the bench of the lower and higher courts who understand those principles.
 
This is why the GOP stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. They needed to appoint two corporate hacks so they could have the ultimate trump card on Congress and the President.

We need to demand Alito and Roberts resign. They represent and defend corporations, not the constitution.

Even Sandra Day O'Conner, a Reagan appointee admits they aren't following stari decisis.
 
And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

I am not a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer, so I depend on legal minds I trust to interpret this stuff for me. And I don't trust one or two opinions but look for many before settling on a conclusion of probability.

Here I believe is a pretty good consensus of what I am deciphering from a plethora of opinions out there:

The language on page 378 of the bill that passed:‘‘
"(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.—
It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment,
or conference report that would repeal or otherwise
change this subsection."

We better hope that this is unconstitutional. If any legislature is allowed to restrict the legislative powers of the Congress, as mandated by the Constitution, without amending the Constitution, then we no longer have a representative republic but a totalitarian government..

The 10th Amendment says:“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.”

According to many of the pending lawsuits, the new law violates the rights of the people and the states by:
1. imposing a new mandate on individuals to obtain health insurance or face a penalty and
2. imposing on the states new costs by expanding Medicaid, which is a federal-state program.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also is filing suit arguing that the law violates the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation. “The taxing and spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies,” the group said in the statement.

Congressman Ted Poe of Texas intends to file legislation as soon as possible to prohibit any federal funding from being appropriated by Congress to fund the individual mandates. He said "I am filing legislation. . . . that will prevent the implementation and enforcement of these unconstitutional mandates included in the Senate healthcare bill. . . .Nowhere in our Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to force us to buy anything, whether that is health insurance, a new car or a box of government approved donuts."

AGs. I think from 12 states now will challenge the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill on grounds of the commerce clause, states rights, and individual freedoms. To date, the participating states are Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota. As all these people, supported by capable legal teams, are members of the bar in their respective states, they can’t all be ignorant of the merits of their respective cases.

For me it is an instinctive reaction to resist my government telling me that I have to do anything in matters that do not infringe on any rights of any others. That to me is a violation of the spirit and intent of the entire U.S. Constitution.

That's the best answer I've seen so far, but perhaps unfortunately it gets a lot more complicated.

As far as unfunded mandates on the States violating their sovereignty, which is the heart of the 10th Amendment argument, here's a pretty good summary of the legal status:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/UnfundedMandates_7.pdf

(Warning: PDF)

The problem is that the USSC has granted wide latitude to Federal agencies administering these programs to manage their own budgets, often at the expense of the States when programs are unfunded or underfunded as a result. See for one example the numerous battles over IDEA and NCLB. This latitude does have limits, see for example Massachusetts v. EPA, but it gives the Feds a lot of leeway.

In this instance, the so-called "mandate" is being handed over to Treasury and specifically the IRS as the controlling agency under the Federal income tax power. The "mandate" portion of the legislation bypasses the States completely this way. Basically the bill raises income tax rates on individuals by 2.5% or $795, whichever is less, for any earner who does not claim health insurance premiums on their Federal tax return. As far as the individual mandate goes, I fail to see where the States even have standing as they are not involved or impacted. And at this point I would make an educated guess it's not an issue ripe for Article 3 jurisdiction as far as suits filed by individuals, and the exemptions built into the legislation will probably render those suits fruitless when they do happen. The combination of Federal agency leeway and Congressional power to set tax policy are too clear and well set.

Bottom line, whether any of us like it or not the States are not going to get anywhere. This is an oft-made argument that rarely succeeds.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top