Commerce Clause : SCOTUS: Congress Authorized To Regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY

[The T]

politics is driving it.

Economics are. The states cannot stand another unfunded MANDATE from the FED, much less an UnConstitutional one.

We are BROKE. what about this don't you idiots understand?

Unfunded? The federal government covers the full cost of Medicaid expansion for the first two years, and covers 92 percent out to eternity.

With WHO's money? OURS. it isn't thiers or YOURS. Got it?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

politics is driving it.

Economics are. The states cannot stand another unfunded MANDATE from the FED, much less an UnConstitutional one.

We are BROKE. what about this don't you idiots understand?

Unfunded? The federal government covers the full cost of Medicaid expansion for the first two years, and covers 92 percent out to eternity.

Of course they do....by the goodness of the Chinese and Arab bankers who will loan us the money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the law doesn't base itself on the idea that health care is a right. It's genesis is in the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't some hippy-dippy liberal reading of the relevant case law. It's a position supported by the vast majority of scholarly legal opinion in the country, and the ideas upon which it rests are spelled out in judicial opinions written by justices of both parties.

well then...what are you bitching about ...the country will let the case proceed to the supreme court and we will see what happens.

doubtful it makes it that far. It'll probably be dismissed due to lack of standing.

and most of patheticphillipe's posts should be dismissed for a lack of under-standing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the law doesn't base itself on the idea that health care is a right. It's genesis is in the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't some hippy-dippy liberal reading of the relevant case law. It's a position supported by the vast majority of scholarly legal opinion in the country, and the ideas upon which it rests are spelled out in judicial opinions written by justices of both parties.

well then...what are you bitching about ...the country will let the case proceed to the supreme court and we will see what happens.

doubtful it makes it that far. It'll probably be dismissed due to lack of standing.

and most of patheticphillipe's posts should be dismissed for a lack of under-standing

 

[PatekPhilippe]

well then...what are you bitching about ...the country will let the case proceed to the supreme court and we will see what happens.

doubtful it makes it that far. It'll probably be dismissed due to lack of standing.

and most of patheticphillipe's posts should be dismissed for a lack of under-standing

Oh..right...no facts...just the usual horseshit response from the DNC sock puppet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

doubtful it makes it that far. It'll probably be dismissed due to lack of standing.

and most of patheticphillipe's posts should be dismissed for a lack of under-standing

Oh..right...no facts...just the usual horseshit response from the DNC sock puppet.

still confusing your opinions with facts?

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, since the federal law in question trumps the laws of the individual states.

NO it doesn't to think so relegates the Tenth Amendment to obscuirty and ignorence as you display. The FED cannot mandate something they have NO RIGHT in doing.

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.

.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

NO it doesn't to think so relegates the Tenth Amendment to obscuirty and ignorence as you display. The FED cannot mandate something they have NO RIGHT in doing.

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.

.

Not only that..but where polk is failing in his argument is this...he thinks the healthcre law is constitutional...and that has yet to be determined in a court of law...so therefore he proceeds with his daily "on the commons" school talking points as discussed by his hyper-liberal ass clown loon friends who all still live with mommy and are senior members of the Democratic Underground and donated to ThinkProgress.org

 

[Polk]

Economics are. The states cannot stand another unfunded MANDATE from the FED, much less an UnConstitutional one.

We are BROKE. what about this don't you idiots understand?

Unfunded? The federal government covers the full cost of Medicaid expansion for the first two years, and covers 92 percent out to eternity.

With WHO's money? OURS. it isn't thiers or YOURS. Got it?

Ours?
Newsflash: the taxes you pay on your liquor doesn't cancel out the drain on society your foodstamps are.

 

[Polk]

NO it doesn't to think so relegates the Tenth Amendment to obscuirty and ignorence as you display. The FED cannot mandate something they have NO RIGHT in doing.

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.

.

And the power to regulate interstate commerce is specifically delegated.

 

[Polk]

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.

.

Not only that..but where polk is failing in his argument is this...he thinks the healthcre law is constitutional...and that has yet to be determined in a court of law...so therefore he proceeds with his daily "on the commons" school talking points as discussed by his hyper-liberal ass clown loon friends who all still live with mommy and are senior members of the Democratic Underground and donated to ThinkProgress.org

I don't think it is. I know it is because I know the relevant case law. Your emotions don't change that, nor does your dismissive attitude toward education (then again, people are often bitter over their failings in life).

 

[Contumacious]

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.

.

And the power to regulate interstate commerce is specifically delegated.

True.

Keyword > INTERSTATE not INTRASTATE.

.

 

[George Costanza]

Keyword > INTERSTATE not INTRASTATE.

Intrastate activities can fall under the interstate commerce clause if those activities would have any rational effect on interstate commerce.

Consider also the Necessary and Proper clause.

 

[Polk]

Keyword > INTERSTATE not INTRASTATE.

Intrastate activities can fall under the interstate commerce clause if those activities would have any rational effect on interstate commerce.

Consider also the Necessary and Proper clause.

It's not really an "also" as much as "because of", but yes.

 

[George Costanza]

Keyword > INTERSTATE not INTRASTATE.

Intrastate activities can fall under the interstate commerce clause if those activities would have any rational effect on interstate commerce.

Consider also the Necessary and Proper clause.

It's not really an "also" as much as "because of", but yes.

No - it's an "also" that can be brought into play in the event the Commerce Clause doesn't do the job.

 

[emilynghiem]

From that radical liberal Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.

the amateur judicial scholars of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB are radical clowns.

Don't know if you heard about this, but the University of Washington attempted to have debate on the constitutionality of the mandate. It's so accepted by legal scholars of all political stripes that they couldn't find a single legal expert who was willing to speak for the proposition that it's unconstitutional.

Don't worry. I haven't found a lot of professional licensed doctors who could explain how cancerous tumors, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, schizophrenia, or even a rare kidney disease "miraculously" disappeared after patients went through spiritual healing treatment. There are lots of things that escape people who claim to be experts.

The experts, and even the Supreme Court, could decide to rule in favor of Congress on this one, and could still be wrong. If the law discriminates against people's beliefs (in either health insurance or constitutionality of the bill itself), where consent of the governed is normally required to make a legally binding social contract, that is not Constitutional.

Majority vote does not constitute law. Elected representatives do not make it lawful. What makes a social contract lawful is if the parties consent. Without consent of the governed as the basis, you violate the spirit of the laws, regardless how you haggle over the letter.

If you start with respect for consent of the governed, then all the other issues and interpretations of the letter can be addressed and resolved in that lawful spirit, with equal Constitutional respect and protection of interests of all persons and parties affected.

 

[emilynghiem]

For all the harping on the Constitution, it's pretty clear you're never read it. Article VI clearly states that where federal laws, when constitutional, trump state law. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the mandate was constitutional, that, by definition, would invalidate state laws prohibiting the mandate.

Only if the power is SPECIFICALLY delegated.

.

And the power to regulate interstate commerce is specifically delegated.

1. If an individual chooses NOT to engage in health insurance at all, such as preferring to pay full price for health services when needed, can citizens be mandated to anyway in order to be regulated? I.e., can the state force you to buy car insurance even if you don't intend to own or drive a car, but would rather ride a bike for environmental reasons.

2. Can the federal government regulate or discriminate by religion [by limiting exemptions to just members of 501(c)(3) nonprofits in existence since 1999 whose members share medical expenses; without equally recognizing religious freedom of nonaffiliated people who believe in funding free spiritual healing to reduce the costs of and need for expensive medications and procedures, in order to serve more of the population without restriction.

3. And if the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calls for federal officials to "seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished" wouldn't federal funding of health care DEMAND the practice of spiritual healing to cut the costs of health care? How can you expect to follow both the federal policies of cost-effective methods AND religious freedom at the same time? The only way I see to meet both standards is by voluntary compliance, not mandatory. The only way you can make a policy mandatory is if people are benefiting from or invoking it, which is not the case with people who do not want to be under federally mandated health insurance plans; if people have violated a law or threaten to, and owe restitution or correction, which is not the case of people who have committed no crime in not wanting to purchase federal health insurance; or if people impose a law on others, or judge or punish people by it, and thus bind themselves to the same standards, which also does not apply to all people contesting this.

If you notice, Obama himself is not required to buy into this federal health plan, but has "voluntarily" offered to purchase it. Likewise, I would argue that all citizens have equal freedom to "voluntarily" buy into it or opt out.

You can't have it both ways.

A. Either mandatory compliance, which would lead to total integration of church and state policies, where if funding and participation is required of all citizens, then people of all religions have equal right to adjust or interpret state policies to agree and accommodate their beliefs fully without contradictions or dissension, in order for there to be no conflicts in being forced to fund state policies and programs. Otherwise, dissenting or conflicting beliefs would be discriminated against or violated. Good luck with that!

B. Or voluntary compliance, which would recognize equal freedom and protections of all people, all parties, and all religious or political beliefs to endorse and fund the health programs of their choice, including church-run teaching hospitals or other charitable services, and unabridged religious freedom to "choose" effective treatments, including spiritual healing and faith-based recovery counseling that rely on individual free choice in order to work in the first place, and cannot be mandated or regulated by government.

Clearly the President is following plan B - "voluntary compliance." So how he or anybody can enforce plan A as "mandatory" without violating Constitutional ethics is beyond me.

 

[Polk]

Intrastate activities can fall under the interstate commerce clause if those activities would have any rational effect on interstate commerce.

Consider also the Necessary and Proper clause.

It's not really an "also" as much as "because of", but yes.

No - it's an "also" that can be brought into play in the event the Commerce Clause doesn't do the job.

"Necessary and proper" is only operative if it falls to the completion of one of Congress's other powers. For example, Congress is not empowered to create a national bank, but McCulloch v. Maryland held that since a national bank can be considered necessary for the regulation of interstate commerce, that the chartering of such a bank was constitutional.

 

[Polk]

The experts, and even the Supreme Court, could decide to rule in favor of Congress on this one, and could still be wrong. If the law discriminates against people's beliefs (in either health insurance or constitutionality of the bill itself), where consent of the governed is normally required to make a legally binding social contract, that is not Constitutional.

Any law that does "discriminates against people's beliefs" is unconstitutional? Using that standard, every law passes is unconstitutional, as you'll find at least one person that feels the law goes against their beliefs.

 

[beowolfe]

State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."

Whose language is this?