Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As much as I have issues with this bill, all you constitutional scholars out can forget about getting this bill thrown out on constitutional grounds. If it were possible, don't you think the opposition, most of whom are lawyers who presumably studied the constitution in much greater detail than the average CDer, would just sit back and let it fall on its own? They know it's constitutional as it stands; they read Lopez and all the other SCOTUS decisions that affect the commerce clause and federal authority.
I disagree. Never in the history of this country, has the federal government mandated that each american MUST purchase a commodity from a private company or be fined.
There is no precedent which will validate this legislation.
Arguments about the Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause have long been debunked.
It's a 10th amendment issue as well. Rights not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States belong to the States. Period.
And the Commerce Clause is pretty straightforward as well. You simply cannot tax someone for breathing.
Yes, but the number of states makes this more than simply one state arguing with the federal government. This bill has an effect on our entire population and so there will be a lot more people disputing it, hence the reason for so many states filing suit.
Personally, I think many people in support of the bill aren't considering the constitutional issue here simply because they like the bill. And people tend to be self interested parties only concerned with what they get and what they want. The fact that it may be an infringement is irrelevant to them as to them, this is a "greater purpose" and so such infringement is acceptable.
That is like saying "I don't mind that that bank got robbed, I never liked it anyway, and besides he gave 1/2 of it to the poor" and then using it as justification for the crime. This is what some on this board are doing.
The bolded part is exactly why the feds have authority under the commerce clause.
For anyone actually interested in the opinions pro and con, regarding this issue, I would strongly recommend the following links so that you can read the opinions of actual constitutional scholars and not another graduate of the Orly Taitz Internet School of Law.
National Journal Magazine - Is A Health Care Mandate Constitutional? (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/print_friendly.php?ID=or_20091212_6842 - broken link)
The bolded part is exactly why the feds have authority under the commerce clause.
According to your argument.. The federal government could write a law saying that all children belong to the government and it would be valid because of the commerce clause.
Many threads have wondered if the States can refuse to participate in the new Federal Socialized Medicine program. Specifically, can states make laws saying no citizen of that state can be forced to buy insurance they don't want, or fined if they refuse to buy it?
Normally, no. If the Fed makes a law saying that everyone with an income of $50,000/yr must pay Federal Income Taxes of $6,000, then no state can make a law saying that state's citizens only have to pay a Fed income tax of $2,000. Because the Fed is authorized by the Constitution to levy that tax in that way if it wants. (And boy, does it want!). See Article 6, Para. 2 of the Constitution.
But if the Fed makes a law saying that everybody must buy a Ford for their next car, or must buy, say, Health insurance whether they like it or not, or else pay the Fed a fine if they don't... that law is unconstitutional, since the Const gives the Fed no such authority to make those laws. Arguments about the Welfare Clause or Commerce Clause have long been debunked. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that any law that is contrary to the Constitution, is null and void - it is no law at all.
So states can certainly make a law saying that none of that state's citizens can be forced to buy a Ford, or an insurance policy, or anything else, or else pay a fine if they refuse. The state is opposig no Federal law at all... since that's what any such Federal law would be: null and void.
The federal government has control over interstate commerce; not intrastate commerce. Pesky thing about health insurance not being able to be sold across state lines. That seems to make it intrastate commerce and outside the realm of Constitutional power of the federal government. Placing it, as many other insurance products, with the states. Do you actually believe state AGs would go to the time and expense of their already precarious state budgets if they didn't think their arguements had good standing?
The unfunded mandate of extended Medicaid benefits for the states, who are soley responsible for funding Medicaid, will push many over the edge to bankruptcy.
For anyone actually interested in the opinions pro and con, I would recommend the following so that you can read the opinions of actual constitutional scholars and not another graduate of the Orly Taitz Internet School of Law.
I disagree. Never in the history of this country, has the federal government mandated that each american MUST purchase a commodity from a private company or be fined.
There is no precedent which will validate this legislation.
There was no precedent for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, or workers compensation. Although FDR had a devil of a time getting it through, it's stood the test of time. Interestingly enough, that time period started the expansion of the fed's power under the commerce clause, that obviously continues today.
There was no precedent for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, or workers compensation. Although FDR had a devil of a time getting it through, it's stood the test of time. Interestingly enough, that time period started the expansion of the fed's power under the commerce clause, that obviously continues today.
None of those programs were unconstitutional. Forcing someone to pay tax for the privilege of being alive is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
