Obamacare, Freedom, And The Joy Of Doing Nothing

[Coydog]

And that explanation right there shows why a narrow interpretation of the constitution is necessary unless, of couse, it is your intention to continue expanding the powers of the Federal government at the expense of the states and the people and overriding the 10th Amendment. We've been using the Commerce Clause since at least the New Deal to expand Federal powers and have gradually made the 10th Amendment meaningless. Unfortunately, the 10th Amendment states explicitly what this country was founded on - that power flows up from the people not down from government - and if we continue in the expansion of Federal power we will, eventually, reverse that founding principle.

Unfortunately, whether the powers of the Federal government should be expanded or limited seem to depend on the particular political issue at hand rather than purely constitutional considerations. How else could Congress pass DOMA which clearly stands in opposition to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Following Wickard, conservative Justice Scalia, who obviously rails against the health insurance mandate, concludes in Gonzales v. Raich the Federal government can impose regulations on private citizens who grow products solely for their own use as allowed by their state because he views the Commerce Clause as permitting federal regulation of intrastate, non-commercial activity claiming such activities effect interstate commerce. Talk about supporting sweeping federal powers. With this interpretation, federal regulation of just about anything is allowed, except of course requiring individuals to purchase health insurance because apparently those who don't buy insurance yet use the health care system do not effect interstate commerce in any way.

[Bubba]

And that explanation right there shows why a narrow interpretation of the constitution is necessary unless, of couse, it is your intention to continue expanding the powers of the Federal government at the expense of the states and the people and overriding the 10th Amendment. We've been using the Commerce Clause since at least the New Deal to expand Federal powers and have gradually made the 10th Amendment meaningless. Unfortunately, the 10th Amendment states explicitly what this country was founded on - that power flows up from the people not down from government - and if we continue in the expansion of Federal power we will, eventually, reverse that founding principle.

Unfortunately, whether the powers of the Federal government should be expanded or limited seem to depend on the particular political issue at hand rather than purely constitutional considerations. How else could Congress pass DOMA which clearly stands in opposition to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Following Wickard, conservative Justice Scalia, who obviously rails against the health insurance mandate, concludes in Gonzales v. Raich the Federal government can impose regulations on private citizens who grow products solely for their own use as allowed by their state because he views the Commerce Clause as permitting federal regulation of intrastate, non-commercial activity claiming such activities effect interstate commerce. Talk about supporting sweeping federal powers. With this interpretation, federal regulation of just about anything is allowed, except of course requiring individuals to purchase health insurance because apparently those who don't buy insurance yet use the health care system do not effect interstate commerce in any way.

There is, however, a very specific and very important difference between the health insurance mandate and the regulation of an illegal product at the state level by the Federal government. In one case - drugs - interstate commerce exists and the Federal government has long had the power to regulate drugs whether by statute or rules set by the FDA. In the other case - the insurance mandate - the government is forcing people to purchase an insurance product/service heretofore regulated solely by the states and where interstate commerce clearly does not exist under law as we are prohibited from purchasing that product/service across state lines, and then claiming the power to regulate it.

I do agree with you that courts and judges can be schizophrenic in their logic. Your reference to DOMA, however, is premature as I believe no case has made it yet to the Supreme Court. The only case I know of that is even related to interstate issues with respect to gay marriage is the case of the lesbian couple in Vermont that divorced and one of the women moved to Virginia, renounced her lesbian past, and refused to allow her gay former partner to visit the child and refused to give up custody as ordered by the Vermont courts. The courts ruled in favor of the Vermont woman on a narrow issue of law unrelated to DOMA or sexual orientation and the Supreme Court did not take the case on appeal.

Now, stop arguing and go eat your broccoli as will be required under the health care law.

[Coydog]

There is, however, a very specific and very important difference between the health insurance mandate and the regulation of an illegal product at the state level by the Federal government. In one case - drugs - interstate commerce exists and the Federal government has long had the power to regulate drugs whether by statute or rules set by the FDA. In the other case - the insurance mandate - the government is forcing people to purchase an insurance product/service heretofore regulated solely by the states and where interstate commerce clearly does not exist under law as we are prohibited from purchasing that product/service across state lines, and then claiming the power to regulate it.

I do agree with you that courts and judges can be schizophrenic in their logic. Your reference to DOMA, however, is premature as I believe no case has made it yet to the Supreme Court. The only case I know of that is even related to interstate issues with respect to gay marriage is the case of the lesbian couple in Vermont that divorced and one of the women moved to Virginia, renounced her lesbian past, and refused to allow her gay former partner to visit the child and refused to give up custody as ordered by the Vermont courts. The courts ruled in favor of the Vermont woman on a narrow issue of law unrelated to DOMA or sexual orientation and the Supreme Court did not take the case on appeal.

Now, stop arguing and go eat your broccoli as will be required under the health care law.

Raich concerned privately grown and consumed medical marijuana in California that is legal under state law. Wickard was a similar case (with a similar outcome) about privately grown and consumed wheat, clearly not an illegal product. The legality of the activity is not central to the power of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause other than in Raich, the SCOTUS found that the feds could also regulate black markets.

My point here is the SCOTUS has held that under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate intrastate activity because this activity almost always effects interstate commerce in some way. Your argument the health insurance mandate must be unconstitutional because the purchase of health insurance is an intrastate activity has long since been rejected - I highly doubt this court will make such an argument. In other words, the Commerce Clause has already been expanded to include intrastate commerce because in the endless indirect view of the court, intrastate commerce effects interstate commerce.

Yes, I am familiar with the Vermont case. The lower Virginia court ruled that Virginia did not have to recognize the Vermont marriage because of DOMA. On appeal, the higher court simply accepted the original Vermont custody order without ever addressing DOMA. Many of us were hoping the case would make it to the SCOTUS, but I believe the Virginia woman fled the country, effectively ending the case.

As soon as grocery stores are compelled to provide me with free broccoli, I'll start eating it.

[Bubba]

There is, however, a very specific and very important difference between the health insurance mandate and the regulation of an illegal product at the state level by the Federal government. In one case - drugs - interstate commerce exists and the Federal government has long had the power to regulate drugs whether by statute or rules set by the FDA. In the other case - the insurance mandate - the government is forcing people to purchase an insurance product/service heretofore regulated solely by the states and where interstate commerce clearly does not exist under law as we are prohibited from purchasing that product/service across state lines, and then claiming the power to regulate it.

I do agree with you that courts and judges can be schizophrenic in their logic. Your reference to DOMA, however, is premature as I believe no case has made it yet to the Supreme Court. The only case I know of that is even related to interstate issues with respect to gay marriage is the case of the lesbian couple in Vermont that divorced and one of the women moved to Virginia, renounced her lesbian past, and refused to allow her gay former partner to visit the child and refused to give up custody as ordered by the Vermont courts. The courts ruled in favor of the Vermont woman on a narrow issue of law unrelated to DOMA or sexual orientation and the Supreme Court did not take the case on appeal.

Now, stop arguing and go eat your broccoli as will be required under the health care law.

Raich concerned privately grown and consumed medical marijuana in California that is legal under state law. Wickard was a similar case (with a similar outcome) about privately grown and consumed wheat, clearly not an illegal product. The legality of the activity is not central to the power of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause other than in Raich, the SCOTUS found that the feds could also regulate black markets.

My point here is the SCOTUS has held that under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate intrastate activity because this activity almost always effects interstate commerce in some way. Your argument the health insurance mandate must be unconstitutional because the purchase of health insurance is an intrastate activity has long since been rejected - I highly doubt this court will make such an argument. In other words, the Commerce Clause has already been expanded to include intrastate commerce because in the endless indirect view of the court, intrastate commerce effects interstate commerce.

Yes, I am familiar with the Vermont case. The lower Virginia court ruled that Virginia did not have to recognize the Vermont marriage because of DOMA. On appeal, the higher court simply accepted the original Vermont custody order without ever addressing DOMA. Many of us were hoping the case would make it to the SCOTUS, but I believe the Virginia woman fled the country, effectively ending the case.

As soon as grocery stores are compelled to provide me with free broccoli, I'll start eating it.

The argument goes beyond that. Purchase across state lines is specifically precluded by law, therefore there can be no interstate commerce. The court would seemingly have to throw out state laws precluding interstate commerce in order to create interstate commerce which could then be regulated.

I'm damn sure glad broccoli is one of my favorite veggies.

[Coydog]

The argument goes beyond that. Purchase across state lines is specifically precluded by law, therefore there can be no interstate commerce. The court would seemingly have to throw out state laws precluding interstate commerce in order to create interstate commerce which could then be regulated.

SCOTUS has already ruled in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n that intrastate health insurance effects interstate commerce:

"This [insurance] business is not separated into 48 distinct territorial compartments which function in isolation from each other. Interrelationship, interdependence, and integration of activities in all the states in which they operate are practical aspects of the insurance companies' methods of doing business. A large share of the insurance business is concentrated in a comparatively few companies located, for the most part, in the financial centers of the East. Premiums collected from policyholders in every part of the United States flow into these companies for investment. As policies become payable, checks and drafts flow back to the many states where the policyholders reside. The result is a continuous and indivisible stream of intercourse among the states composed of collections of premiums, payments of policy obligations, and the countless documents and communications which are essential to the negotiation and execution of policy contracts." [U.S. v. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), accessed 1/19/10]

In addition, ObamaCare sets national minimum health insurance standards, clearly an interstate activity. If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, it will probably be because SCOTUS does not want to find constitutional grounds to expand the Commerce Clause to include regulation of economic inactivity, though not buying health insurance certainly has a more direct effect on interstate commerce than growing pot for your own legal use. Of course, SCOTUS has never held that economic inactivity cannot be regulated, but there it is.

Again, I believe it is possible to reject the idea of a mandate to purchase a private product but accept the entirety of ObamaCare based on the careful reading of the penalty clause:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

So in effect, the ObamaCare mandate is not really a mandate at all. The court can prevent the expansion of the feds to regulate economic inactivity and uphold the health insurance reforms in one fell swoop. If that actually happens, I'll probably see you on the new Pico-Interconnect lift.

[steamboat1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoFsaVkL6HM

[madhatter]

another bitchslap for president dumbass

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/


Keep flappin them lips dumbass, maybe the court can take up your birth certificate next.

[Coydog]

another bitchslap for president dumbass

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/


Keep flappin them lips dumbass, maybe the court can take up your birth certificate next.

The 5th Circuit judges are the "dumbasses" here. The part of the Obama quote they chose to ignore is:

I'm actually - continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way. That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case.

Since 1936, the SCOTUS has only ruled against two federal statutes regarding congressional regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause. Perhaps a ruling against it now wouldn’t be unprecedented but it would certainly be against precedent and quite extraordinary. Unfortunately, unless the court decides with a clear majority – either way – the ruling will be perceived as politically motivated, settling virtually nothing.

[DMC]

I don't know why we have to tear the whole thing down just to fix one thing..
People are using it right now.. And people depend on that it...

Can't we just talk and figure out this whole mandate thing and leave the rest of the stuff that working?

[JerseyGuy]

I don't know why we have to tear the whole thing down just to fix one thing..
People are using it right now.. And people depend on that it...

Can't we just talk and figure out this whole mandate thing and leave the rest of the stuff that working?

Not if the goal is to destroy a plan based on a conservative think-tank's idea, already put in place by the soon-to-be-GOP nominee for president, because it was actually implemented by a Democrat.

Doesn't matter if the GOP's got nothing to put in it's place. Their goal here is to repeal. "Replace" is simply a word they use to fill out the rest of the bumper sticker.

[DMC]

yeah... but if there's stuff they agree with - why not keep it in??
Why waste the time and possibly hurt Americans that are using some of this?

Like pre-existing conditions... Or the Medicare coverage gap.... Or people under 25 that are still on their parents plans...

[XtremeJibber2001]

I don't know why we have to tear the whole thing down just to fix one thing..
People are using it right now.. And people depend on that it...

Can't we just talk and figure out this whole mandate thing and leave the rest of the stuff that working?

+1

Seems silly to get rid of everything because of the mandate (acknowledging that the mandate is what makes this law work) ... I don't know much about it, but would this one ruling impact everything related to the Healthcare law?

[DMC]

I don't know why we have to tear the whole thing down just to fix one thing..
People are using it right now.. And people depend on that it...

Can't we just talk and figure out this whole mandate thing and leave the rest of the stuff that working?

+1

Seems silly to get rid of everything because of the mandate (acknowledging that the mandate is what makes this law work) ... I don't know much about it, but would this one ruling impact everything related to the Healthcare law?

They need to rationally discuss this and make it better.. not throw the baby out with the bath water

[JerseyGuy]

Why waste the time and possibly hurt Americans that are using some of this?

Because those Americans are nothing but useless collateral damage to the GOP -- folks who they'd probably rather keep away from the polls, anyway.

Remember the GOP's Number One Goal, Always, Forever:

My biggest goal is to make Obama a one-term President.

Everything else is secondary.

[DMC]

Why waste the time and possibly hurt Americans that are using some of this?

Because those Americans are nothing but useless collateral damage to the GOP -- folks who they'd probably rather keep away from the polls, anyway.

Count my Mom in that list - her healthcare ended... She's on COBRA and will need to find another provider..
She's a 2 time cancer survivor - with the law now she can't get turned down due to preexisting conditions..
If it changes... I don't know what we're going to do...