Constitutional ignorance on display

[Ravi]

There are some things that are reserved to the States, and the Feds can't touch them.

Health insurance isn't one of them.

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.

My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

Not entirely true. There are some things the states can do that are reserved to them and them alone. The Feds aren't empowered to do it. One example would be marriage and family law (questions of DOMA constitutionality aside). Federal courts are barred from hearing things like custody and divorce cases.

There are also parts of the Bill of Rights that aren't incorporated to the States, like the 7th.

But you're right about health insurance in general. The question on constitutionality that's a case of first impression is enforcing the mandate with a tax/penalty, it's a commerce clause issue not a 10th Amendment issue.

I'm not totally getting what you are saying, can you give me a concrete example? Just because the feds can't hear divorce cases doesn't mean the state can deny someone's civil rights in a divorce case.

 

[Charles_Main]

If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.

Ravi often Demonstrates a sever Nativity when it comes to the legal workings of our System of Government.

 

[manifold]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

 

[goldcatt]

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.

My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

Not entirely true. There are some things the states can do that are reserved to them and them alone. The Feds aren't empowered to do it. One example would be marriage and family law (questions of DOMA constitutionality aside). Federal courts are barred from hearing things like custody and divorce cases.

There are also parts of the Bill of Rights that aren't incorporated to the States, like the 7th.

But you're right about health insurance in general. The question on constitutionality that's a case of first impression is enforcing the mandate with a tax/penalty, it's a commerce clause issue not a 10th Amendment issue.

I'm not totally getting what you are saying, can you give me a concrete example? Just because the feds can't hear divorce cases doesn't mean the state can deny someone's civil rights in a divorce case.

No, but civil rights would be a separate issue from granting the status of "divorced".

The Feds are barred from granting that status or hearing the case to do so in their courts. It's a question of status that the States have the sole power to give out to its own residents.

That would be a separate issue from any civil rights issue that might come up, which would usually be a 14th Amendment and therefore a constitutional issue.

It can get complicated. Very little in this stuff is entirely black and white, or made up of just one issue.

 

[Yurt]

What?

There are some things that are reserved to the States, and the Feds can't touch them.

Health insurance isn't one of them.

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.
My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

DOMA

and states can outlaw obamacare, but the federal government could not

 

[Yurt]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

apples/oranges

state mandated insurance is not the same as federally mandated insurance and the question of law would not be identical at all

you fail as usual pantifold

 

[goldcatt]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I'm not sure whether a state could enforce a mandate using a tax/penalty scheme like this if the Feds can't. If it is, in fact, a commerce clause issue and one over which the Feds have regulatory power but it's just the method of enforcement that cannot be used, it will depend on the grounds and whether those grounds are applicable to the States.

I think it will be found constitutional, for a few reasons not the least of which is the blatant use of Scalia's argument from the Gonzales concurrence in the District Court opinion. That might end up being too rich a plum to pass up.

IOW, nobody knows the answer yet. Is it theoretically possible that the Feds cannot do this but the States can? Probably not, but not for the same reason. Now if that doesn't make sense, nothing will.

 

[Yurt]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I'm not sure whether a state could enforce a mandate using a tax/penalty scheme like this if the Feds can't. If it is, in fact, a commerce clause issue and one over which the Feds have regulatory power but it's just the method of enforcement that cannot be used, it will depend on the grounds and whether those grounds are applicable to the States.

I think it will be found constitutional, for a few reasons not the least of which is the blatant use of Scalia's argument from the Gonzales concurrence in the District Court opinion. That might end up being too rich a plum to pass up.

IOW, nobody knows the answer yet. Is it theoretically possible that the Feds cannot do this but the States can? Probably not, but not for the same reason. Now if that doesn't make sense, nothing will.

i will write a 1000 page brief, chalk full of pretty charts, to prove you're wrong

 

[Ravi]

Not entirely true. There are some things the states can do that are reserved to them and them alone. The Feds aren't empowered to do it. One example would be marriage and family law (questions of DOMA constitutionality aside). Federal courts are barred from hearing things like custody and divorce cases.

There are also parts of the Bill of Rights that aren't incorporated to the States, like the 7th.

But you're right about health insurance in general. The question on constitutionality that's a case of first impression is enforcing the mandate with a tax/penalty, it's a commerce clause issue not a 10th Amendment issue.

I'm not totally getting what you are saying, can you give me a concrete example? Just because the feds can't hear divorce cases doesn't mean the state can deny someone's civil rights in a divorce case.

No, but civil rights would be a separate issue from granting the status of "divorced".

The Feds are barred from granting that status or hearing the case to do so in their courts. It's a question of status that the States have the sole power to give out to its own residents.

That would be a separate issue from any civil rights issue that might come up, which would usually be a 14th Amendment and therefore a constitutional issue.

It can get complicated. Very little in this stuff is entirely black and white, or made up of just one issue.

Okay, fine...you said I was right about the insurance and that is good enough for me.

The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses so I'm not sure how they could dissolve one.

 

[goldcatt]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I'm not sure whether a state could enforce a mandate using a tax/penalty scheme like this if the Feds can't. If it is, in fact, a commerce clause issue and one over which the Feds have regulatory power but it's just the method of enforcement that cannot be used, it will depend on the grounds and whether those grounds are applicable to the States.

I think it will be found constitutional, for a few reasons not the least of which is the blatant use of Scalia's argument from the Gonzales concurrence in the District Court opinion. That might end up being too rich a plum to pass up.

IOW, nobody knows the answer yet. Is it theoretically possible that the Feds cannot do this but the States can? Probably not, but not for the same reason. Now if that doesn't make sense, nothing will.

i will write a 1000 page brief, chalk full of pretty charts, to prove you're wrong

You won't post it, will you?

But I'm a sucker for those pretty charts.

 

[Valerie]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I'm not sure whether a state could enforce a mandate using a tax/penalty scheme like this if the Feds can't. If it is, in fact, a commerce clause issue and one over which the Feds have regulatory power but it's just the method of enforcement that cannot be used, it will depend on the grounds and whether those grounds are applicable to the States.

I think it will be found constitutional, for a few reasons not the least of which is the blatant use of Scalia's argument from the Gonzales concurrence in the District Court opinion. That might end up being too rich a plum to pass up.

IOW, nobody knows the answer yet. Is it theoretically possible that the Feds cannot do this but the States can? Probably not, but not for the same reason. Now if that doesn't make sense, nothing will.

i will write a 1000 page brief, chalk full of pretty charts, to prove you're wrong

Please do, I'm confused!

 

[Ravi]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I think you are incorrect. If SCOTUS said that the feds couldn't outlaw weed then the states couldn't either.

 

[Ravi]

There are some things that are reserved to the States, and the Feds can't touch them.

Health insurance isn't one of them.

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.
My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

DOMA

and states can outlaw obamacare, but the federal government could not

Isn't DOMA a federal mandate?

 

[Valerie]

There is NOTHING the state can do that is unconstitutional at a federal level.
My point to manipoo was pretty simple. He claimed masscare was constitutional at the state level but not at the federal level. That is impossible.

DOMA

and states can outlaw obamacare, but the federal government could not

Isn't DOMA a federal mandate?

Yes and marriage laws are statutes.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm not totally getting what you are saying, can you give me a concrete example? Just because the feds can't hear divorce cases doesn't mean the state can deny someone's civil rights in a divorce case.

No, but civil rights would be a separate issue from granting the status of "divorced".

The Feds are barred from granting that status or hearing the case to do so in their courts. It's a question of status that the States have the sole power to give out to its own residents.

That would be a separate issue from any civil rights issue that might come up, which would usually be a 14th Amendment and therefore a constitutional issue.

It can get complicated. Very little in this stuff is entirely black and white, or made up of just one issue.

Okay, fine...you said I was right about the insurance and that is good enough for me.

The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses so I'm not sure how they could dissolve one.

Exactly.

And the mandate issue wouldn't be decided on constitutional grounds at the State level, unless the higher courts pull a fast one and decide it on grounds that apply to the states. The District Court didn't. But who knows what they'll do?

I still think they'll find it constitutional. I want to see charts and stuff.

 

[goldcatt]

DOMA

and states can outlaw obamacare, but the federal government could not

Isn't DOMA a federal mandate?

Yes and marriage laws are statutes.

Do yo want the full sidetrack into marriage and exactly what DOMA does as opposed to what the State does and why? It's a long explanation. You might prefer to read Yurt's brief.

 

[Ravi]

No, but civil rights would be a separate issue from granting the status of "divorced".

The Feds are barred from granting that status or hearing the case to do so in their courts. It's a question of status that the States have the sole power to give out to its own residents.

That would be a separate issue from any civil rights issue that might come up, which would usually be a 14th Amendment and therefore a constitutional issue.

It can get complicated. Very little in this stuff is entirely black and white, or made up of just one issue.

Okay, fine...you said I was right about the insurance and that is good enough for me.

The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses so I'm not sure how they could dissolve one.

Exactly.

And the mandate issue wouldn't be decided on constitutional grounds at the State level, unless the higher courts pull a fast one and decide it on grounds that apply to the states. The District Court didn't. But who knows what they'll do?

I still think they'll find it constitutional. I want to see charts and stuff.

I think they will, too...after all, income tax is constitutional no matter how people pretend that it isn't.

But you people are speaking way above my pay grade now.

 

[Yurt]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I think you are incorrect. If SCOTUS said that the feds couldn't outlaw weed then the states couldn't either.

depends on why the scotus said so, if the scotus said the feds couldn't outlaw it because it is a states right issue....

 

[Ravi]

Isn't DOMA a federal mandate?

Yes and marriage laws are statutes.

Do yo want the full sidetrack into marriage and exactly what DOMA does as opposed to what the State does and why? It's a long explanation. You might prefer to read Yurt's brief.

Yurt wears briefs? Do they have polka dots?

 

[Yurt]

Isn't DOMA a federal mandate?

Yes and marriage laws are statutes.

Do yo want the full sidetrack into marriage and exactly what DOMA does as opposed to what the State does and why? It's a long explanation. You might prefer to read Yurt's brief.

yeah, my charts are pretty!