BREAKING: Appeals Court Strikes Down Insurance Mandate

[Kathianne]

Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-strikes-health-insurance-requirement-173543503.html)


ATLANTA (AP) — A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.

But the decision didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics say the law violates people's rights. The Justice Department counters that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

An appeals court and three federal judges have upheld the law, and two have invalidated it. Experts say the debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Little-Acorn]

It's always a hoot to see the big-govt addicts twisting around to try to justify expanding government into more and more of our lives.

Here, the dissenting judge said that, since the Fed govt has taken so much power, that makes it OK for them to take so much power.

(Huh?)


One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html


Sort of like saying that, since a bank robber has hit the same bank over and over and has taken so much of its money, this means that we should make the robber a full partner in the bank and give him a big salary.

[Gaffer]

It's always a hoot to see the big-govt addicts twisting around to try to justify expanding government into more and more of our lives.

Here, the dissenting judge said that, since the Fed govt has taken so much power, that makes it OK for them to take so much power.

(Huh?)



Sort of like saying that, since a bank robber has hit the same bank over and over and has taken so much of its money, this means that we should make the robber a full partner in the bank and give him a big salary.

Some of these so called "judges" need to be taken out back of the court house for a good old fashion ass whoopin.

[Kathianne]

Some interesting early analysis:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/08/11th-circuit-strikes-down-obamacare-mandate/


11th Circuit strikes down Obamacare mandate (http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/08/11th-circuit-strikes-down-obamacare-mandate/)

Posted by William A. Jacobson (http://legalinsurrection.com/author/bill/) Friday, August 12, 2011 at 1:18pm




This is the big case involving 26 states. In January, Judge Roger Vinson struck the entire law (http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare-injunction-denied-as-unnecessary-since-entire-law-unconstitutional/) finding that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law.


The 11th Circuit ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, but unlike Judge Vinson, did not throw out the entire law, finging that the mandate could be severed. The opinion is here (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111021.pdf).
Here is the conclusion summarizing the various aspects of the ruling:

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.


Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.


Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce. [fn omitted]


The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operaive after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.


Some thoughts in no particular order:


Once again a court rejects the belated argument by the administration that the mandate is an exercise of taxing powers. I believe that every court that has considered the issue has ruled against Obama.
The main opinion is 204 pages, much of which is devoted to explaining how the law works. When Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what was in it, she was right. And we need hundreds of pages of judicial decision to tell us.
The mandate was rejected precisely because it requires people to enter a market rather than regulating a market. I’ll have to spend some more time to see if the court adopted the activity/no activity distinction, but this language certain sounds familiar to people who have been reading Legal Insurrection:

...

[KartRacerBoy]

This issue strikes me as kind of dangerous. Some courts have found the individual mandate as just fine and some say it's entierely unconstitutional. But unless the courts make a VERY NARROW finding that the mandate is unconstitutional, much of the federal govt programs will then also be unconstitutional. Commerce clause. Yada, yada.

SCOTUS is clearly a political body. It can only make law if it thinks the majority will follow it. If it makes law that the body politic ignores, it is a dead institution, at least in the near term. However, there is a clear cultural war going on in the SCt right now. The chief justice, John Roberts, is much more of a political animal than Alito or Thomas, and much more so than his predecessor, Renquist, ever was. WHEN this case gets to the SCt, the baby will be split. It may not be down the middle, but the decision will NOT satisfy either side's partisans.

[Gaffer]

This issue strikes me as kind of dangerous. Some courts have found the individual mandate as just fine and some say it's entierely unconstitutional. But unless the courts make a VERY NARROW finding that the mandate is unconstitutional, much of the federal govt programs will then also be unconstitutional. Commerce clause. Yada, yada.

SCOTUS is clearly a political body. It can only make law if it thinks the majority will follow it. If it makes law that the body politic ignores, it is a dead institution, at least in the near term. However, there is a clear cultural war going on in the SCt right now. The chief justice, John Roberts, is much more of a political animal than Alito or Thomas, and much more so than his predecessor, Renquist, ever was. WHEN this case gets to the SCt, the baby will be split. It may not be down the middle, but the decision will NOT satisfy either side's partisans.

That's the problem with you and all lefties. You think the SCOTUS is there to MAKE law. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to determine whether a law is Constitutional. Congress MAKES the law, the president enforces the law, the SC determines if the law is legal.

[red states rule]

This issue strikes me as kind of dangerous. Some courts have found the individual mandate as just fine and some say it's entierely unconstitutional. But unless the courts make a VERY NARROW finding that the mandate is unconstitutional, much of the federal govt programs will then also be unconstitutional. Commerce clause. Yada, yada.

SCOTUS is clearly a political body. It can only make law if it thinks the majority will follow it. If it makes law that the body politic ignores, it is a dead institution, at least in the near term. However, there is a clear cultural war going on in the SCt right now. The chief justice, John Roberts, is much more of a political animal than Alito or Thomas, and much more so than his predecessor, Renquist, ever was. WHEN this case gets to the SCt, the baby will be split. It may not be down the middle, but the decision will NOT satisfy either side's partisans.

How is the individual mandate anywhere near constitutional? Where in the US Constitution does it state the government can force the people to buy a particular product/service?

If the Obama administration gets away with this what would stop future administrations to force people to buy a gym membership? Dietary supplements?

Why stop at health insurance? Why not force people to buy vision insurance and dental insurance?

Also, given a majority still want Obamacare repealed does not make the left in this country very happy

As far a the USSC being "political body" I suspect you say they that and single out those Judges because they see their role as interpreting the law and not creating law from the bench as the liberal Judges do

The Dems have been relying on the Courts to impose their ideology on the people since they can't do it any other way

[Kathianne]

This issue strikes me as kind of dangerous. Some courts have found the individual mandate as just fine and some say it's entierely unconstitutional. But unless the courts make a VERY NARROW finding that the mandate is unconstitutional, much of the federal govt programs will then also be unconstitutional. Commerce clause. Yada, yada.

SCOTUS is clearly a political body. It can only make law if it thinks the majority will follow it. If it makes law that the body politic ignores, it is a dead institution, at least in the near term. However, there is a clear cultural war going on in the SCt right now. The chief justice, John Roberts, is much more of a political animal than Alito or Thomas, and much more so than his predecessor, Renquist, ever was. WHEN this case gets to the SCt, the baby will be split. It may not be down the middle, but the decision will NOT satisfy either side's partisans.


That's the problem with you and all lefties. You think the SCOTUS is there to MAKE law. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to determine whether a law is Constitutional. Congress MAKES the law, the president enforces the law, the SC determines if the law is legal.

It seems to me that Kartracer not only grabs the liberal line, he is doing so without understanding that SCOTUS has done nothing regarding the health care fiasco as of yet. Roberts hasn't come into play, neither have Alito or Thomas.

While partisans tend to see the Court as political, it's rarely the case. The problem for either party is one of the ideological make up of the Court. There's no rules about that, which is why in more recent decades the questioning of nominees has tended towards trying to extract promises of what they'll do in the future.

Many of both party's presidents have been appalled at how their nominees turn out to rule. It's the lay of that land.

[red states rule]

It seems to me that Kartracer not only grabs the liberal line, he is doing so without understanding that SCOTUS has done nothing regarding the health care fiasco as of yet. Roberts hasn't come into play, neither have Alito or Thomas.

While partisans tend to see the Court as political, it's rarely the case. The problem for either party is one of the ideological make up of the Court. There's no rules about that, which is why in more recent decades the questioning of nominees has tended towards trying to extract promises of what they'll do in the future.

Many of both party's presidents have been appalled at how their nominees turn out to rule. It's the lay of that land.

The USSC wil have this case in time for the 2012 election, and Obama will once again have to defend it

I want him to explain the tax increeases, the increases government power, and the massive deficit it adds to the budget as well as the overall debt

Kartracer and the rest of the left will ignore these points but a majority of voters will not. I will give Pelosi credit however. When she said they had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it she was right. The more we have found out abouit Obamacare the more people want it repealed

Obamacare is simply a tax bill that is a budget buster as well as an unconstitutional power grab by the left

[KartRacerBoy]

It seems to me that Kartracer not only grabs the liberal line, he is doing so without understanding that SCOTUS has done nothing regarding the health care fiasco as of yet. Roberts hasn't come into play, neither have Alito or Thomas.

While partisans tend to see the Court as political, it's rarely the case. The problem for either party is one of the ideological make up of the Court. There's no rules about that, which is why in more recent decades the questioning of nominees has tended towards trying to extract promises of what they'll do in the future.

Many of both party's presidents have been appalled at how their nominees turn out to rule. It's the lay of that land.

:laugh:

Really? The SCt isn't political? Checked out all the 5-4 votes lately? Do a little checklist of which judges were on which side with Kennedy the swing vote. Do you follow the Supreme Court al all?

[red states rule]

:laugh:

Really? The SCt isn't political? Checked out all the 5-4 votes lately? Do a little checklist of which judges were on which side with Kennedy the swing vote. Do you follow the Supreme Court al all?

As pointed out, the conservatives see their role as INTERPRETING the US Constitution, while the liberals on the Court see their role as CHANGING the US Constitution

Libs are relying more and more on the courts to create laws from the bench and impose liberalism on the people since they can't pass their agenda at the ballot box

[KarlMarx]

This is encouraging news. Perhaps the judiciary will do what Congress is unwilling to do. Get Obamacare off of the necks of the American businessman, defund it and help to pare 2 Trillion dollars in unnecessary and unaffordable spending.... maybe (do I dare dream it?) get our credit rating back.

Obamacare is one reason why businesses are not hiring. They don't know what kind of expense it will require if they hire people. If things are to improve, then we must get rid of this albatross (and the other albatross ... the one it's named after)

[red states rule]

This is encouraging news. Perhaps the judiciary will do what Congress is unwilling to do. Get Obamacare off of the necks of the American businessman, defund it and help to pare 2 Trillion dollars in unnecessary and unaffordable spending.... maybe (do I dare dream it?) get our credit rating back.

Obamacare is one reason why businesses are not hiring. They don't know what kind of expense it will require if they hire people. If things are to improve, then we must get rid of this albatross (and the other albatross ... the one it's named after)

and if Obamacare is repealed, more workers will ot only be able to keep their jobs but their employer will NOT drop their health cooverage benefit

Of course the left will have a massive temper tantrum while the rest of us breath a sigh of relief

[Gunny]

It's always a hoot to see the big-govt addicts twisting around to try to justify expanding government into more and more of our lives.

Here, the dissenting judge said that, since the Fed govt has taken so much power, that makes it OK for them to take so much power.

(Huh?)



Sort of like saying that, since a bank robber has hit the same bank over and over and has taken so much of its money, this means that we should make the robber a full partner in the bank and give him a big salary.

Lincoln started the crap when he became bigger than the US Constitution, and the Supremes validated it in 1868 in Texas v White.

[red states rule]

Lincoln started the crap when he became bigger than the US Constitution, and the Supremes validated it in 1868 in Texas v White.

Real leader do not make excuses

Real leadres LEAD. Real leaders come up with a game plan and are willing to amke adjustments as neded

I NEVER heard Pres Bush blame others for his failures. I NEVER heard Pres Bush blame MSNBC or the NY Times for bad press coverage

Obama is a cry baby and his lap dog supporters have been forced to lower the bar when it comes to leadership in their lame attempt to defend him

[ConHog]

Real leader do not make excuses

Real leadres LEAD. Real leaders come up with a game plan and are willing to amke adjustments as neded

I NEVER heard Pres Bush blame others for his failures. I NEVER heard Pres Bush blame MSNBC or the NY Times for bad press coverage

Obama is a cry baby and his lap dog supporters have been forced to lower the bar when it comes to leadership in their lame attempt to defend him

Obama is definitely the thinnest skinned President in my memory. Why would you get into politics if your ego was so sensitive?

[KartRacerBoy]

Here's the funny thing. Under current case law with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the federal govt has the authority to make private insurance unlawful and replace it with a single payor system.

But the federal govt dosn't have the right to mandate private insurance coverage? I will enjoy watching the non political SCt weasle out of that little paradox.

[KartRacerBoy]

It's always a hoot to see the big-govt addicts twisting around to try to justify expanding government into more and more of our lives.

Here, the dissenting judge said that, since the Fed govt has taken so much power, that makes it OK for them to take so much power.

(Huh?)



Sort of like saying that, since a bank robber has hit the same bank over and over and has taken so much of its money, this means that we should make the robber a full partner in the bank and give him a big salary.

I know. Like who in the western world pays any attention to legal precedent? What a naive policy for the judiciary in this country to follow! Instead, let's decide every case anew and not have ANY legal precedent. Good gosh, that would make a lot of sense.

Or maybe it would be completely inane.

[fj1200]

Here's the funny thing. Under current case law with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the federal govt has the authority to make private insurance unlawful and replace it with a single payor system.

But the federal govt dosn't have the right to mandate private insurance coverage? I will enjoy watching the non political SCt weasle out of that little paradox.

I believe it's been decided that SS, Mcare, Maid, are being funded by taxes and especially in the case of SS, they are not contributions and the payers have zero ownership of their contributions taxes. The mandate to purchase insurance from a third private party is distinctly different.

[KartRacerBoy]

It seems to me that Kartracer not only grabs the liberal line, he is doing so without understanding that SCOTUS has done nothing regarding the health care fiasco as of yet. Roberts hasn't come into play, neither have Alito or Thomas.

While partisans tend to see the Court as political, it's rarely the case. The problem for either party is one of the ideological make up of the Court. There's no rules about that, which is why in more recent decades the questioning of nominees has tended towards trying to extract promises of what they'll do in the future.

Many of both party's presidents have been appalled at how their nominees turn out to rule. It's the lay of that land.


Are you really a moderator on this site? I would think the first requirement was reading past a 1st grade level. I spoke of the potential dangers of this issue if it went before the US SCt. I did not say it was before the court. Try going back and looking. It might help.

And to say SCOTUS isn't political nowadays is ridiculous. It has always been and always will be. Go pack to FDR's attempt to pack the court. Wasn't it amazing how the court changed its outlook on FDR's various programs when he threatened to put justices on the court that would approve them? Or go back to the days of slavery and the various decisions issued by a court dominated by southern state justices. Or look at the various controversial decision in the past few years uder the Roberts court that always have the four conservative justices on one side and the lfour iberal justices on the other with Kennedy providing the deciding vote.

To say SCOTUS isn't political is naive at best.

[fj1200]

To say SCOTUS isn't political is naive at best.

I'm amazed/disappointed at how down the line it is at every level, Clinton appointees support while Reagan/Bush appointees reject. The HC decisions make it glaring.

[Kathianne]

I'm amazed/disappointed at how down the line it is at every level, Clinton appointees support while Reagan/Bush appointees reject. The HC decisions make it glaring.

Not all that often we disagree:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/13/obamas-anti-jobs-agenda-takes-another-hit-federal-judge-tosses-obamas-oil-drilling-rules/

I'm not saying that during the vetting each President certainly tries to read the judges politics or ideological thinking. What my point was and is, they often get it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unite d_States

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm amazed/disappointed at how down the line it is at every level, Clinton appointees support while Reagan/Bush appointees reject. The HC decisions make it glaring.

I agree. At that level, one would hope for some kind of intellectual honesty on both sides of political divides. Scalia sometimes provides it in Sixth Amendment (right to confrontation) cases, but that's about it. I'm sure there's more on both sides but it pains me to see the hard political cases fought and decided on such a partisan level. One would think there were bigger priniciples at stake for both sides.

[Kathianne]

I'm amazed/disappointed at how down the line it is at every level, Clinton appointees support while Reagan/Bush appointees reject. The HC decisions make it glaring.

Perhaps not as much as you think. Often with the appellate courts you are talking regional influences that shape the ideology. Not surprisingly most often the NY and CA are the most liberal, yet both too render 'conservative rulings' often enough. Those with Southern influences, well the opposite on both counts, usually conservative with more than occasional liberal.

[KartRacerBoy]

I believe it's been decided that SS, Mcare, Maid, are being funded by taxes and especially in the case of SS, they are not contributions and the payers have zero ownership of their contributions taxes. The mandate to purchase insurance from a third private party is distinctly different.

I'm not sure why you think this is responsive to the irony I pointed out (mandated private insurance vs govt provided single payor system).

[fj1200]

I'm not sure why you think this is responsive to the irony I pointed out (mandated private insurance vs govt provided single payor system).

Does the SC make judgement's based on irony? They are different for the reasons I laid out are they not? I can find the SC decision regarding SS contributions and I'm guessing M & M are similar. I am certainly open to being incorrect on that issue.

Wouldn't it also violate "___insert_legal_issue*___" that mandates equal taxation* where those who have health insurance are not taxed and those who don't are?

*it's late, I can't think of it, sue me.

[KartRacerBoy]

Does the SC make judgement's based on irony? They are different for the reasons I laid out are they not? I can find the SC decision regarding SS contributions and I'm guessing M & M are similar. I am certainly open to being incorrect on that issue.

Wouldn't it also violate "___insert_legal_issue*___" that mandates equal taxation* where those who have health insurance are not taxed and those who don't are?

*it's late, I can't think of it, sue me.

I certainly think that Justice Kennedy is big on irony. :laugh:

My point is that the federal govt is perfectly capable of instituting a sinfle payor system "funded by taxes" (as you say) and doing it constitutionally under current law while the conservative complain about mandated private insurance, a far smaller intrusion.

Hence the whole "irony" thing.

It's the whole "be careful what you wish for" thing, too.

[fj1200]

I certainly think that Justice Kennedy is big on irony. :laugh:

My point is that the federal govt is perfectly capable of instituting a sinfle payor system "funded by taxes" (as you say) and doing it constitutionally under current law while the conservative complain about mandated private insurance, a far smaller intrusion.

Hence the whole "irony" thing.

It's the whole "be careful what you wish for" thing, too.

You may be right about that but I would almost prefer it because it would at least be the direct approach rather than the burdensome behemoth we did get that will likely lead to single payer. And then they would also have to tax EVERYONE rather than just the evil rich.

[KartRacerBoy]

You may be right about that but I would almost prefer it because it would at least be the direct approach rather than the burdensome behemoth we did get that will likely lead to single payer. And then they would also have to tax EVERYONE rather than just the evil rich.


The individual mandate is much like CAFE standards for cars. Imperfect but driven by political expediency.

[fj1200]

Imperfect but driven by political stupidity.

Interpreted.

[KartRacerBoy]

Interpreted.

You, sir, are a quote fucker. :laugh:

[logroller]

The individual mandate is much like CAFE standards for cars. Imperfect but driven by political expediency.

...to further undermine the institution of American democracy. Those pesky enumerated powers always get in the way of the change we need, right? What we need is benevolent dictator, someone to strong arm Congress and the judiciary into submission; of course, it's for the good of the People--- that's the change We can believe in.

[ConHog]

...to further undermine the institution of American democracy. Those pesky enumerated powers always get in the way of the change we need, right? What we need is benevolent dictator, someone to strong arm Congress and the judiciary into submission; of course, it's for the good of the People--- that's the change We can believe in.

What the moron doesn't understand is that the CAFE standards are unconstitutional as well. If I want to be able to buy a truck that gets 1 MPG , that should be my right.

Someone should ask Obama what kind of mileage his jet gets. Or his limo for that matter.

[red states rule]

How is the individual mandate anywhere near constitutional? Where in the US Constitution does it state the government can force the people to buy a particular product/service?

If the Obama administration gets away with this what would stop future administrations to force people to buy a gym membership? Dietary supplements?

Why stop at health insurance? Why not force people to buy vision insurance and dental insurance?

Also, given a majority still want Obamacare repealed does not make the left in this country very happy

As far a the USSC being "political body" I suspect you say they that and single out those Judges because they see their role as interpreting the law and not creating law from the bench as the liberal Judges do

The Dems have been relying on the Courts to impose their ideology on the people since they can't do it any other way

Where is Kart? All I got so far on this is crickets chirping

[Gunny]

Real leader do not make excuses

Real leadres LEAD. Real leaders come up with a game plan and are willing to amke adjustments as neded

I NEVER heard Pres Bush blame others for his failures. I NEVER heard Pres Bush blame MSNBC or the NY Times for bad press coverage

Obama is a cry baby and his lap dog supporters have been forced to lower the bar when it comes to leadership in their lame attempt to defend him

But it's nothing new. Obama ran for office on nothing but excuses, and deflecting blame.

[Gunny]

I know. Like who in the western world pays any attention to legal precedent? What a naive policy for the judiciary in this country to follow! Instead, let's decide every case anew and not have ANY legal precedent. Good gosh, that would make a lot of sense.

Or maybe it would be completely inane.

Maybe it's about time someone DID quit following the legal precedent, good ol' boy system and start thinking for themselves what with the absolutely and increasingly stupid rulings we've been getting. Naive? Naive is sticking your head in the sand and following a precedent just because "that's the way we always do it."

[KartRacerBoy]

What the moron doesn't understand is that the CAFE standards are unconstitutional as well. If I want to be able to buy a truck that gets 1 MPG , that should be my right.

Someone should ask Obama what kind of mileage his jet gets. Or his limo for that matter.


Commerce clause, CockHog. What affects interstate commerce more than transportation? Not to mention 200+ years of constitutional caselaw.

[red states rule]

Commerce clause, CockHog. What affects interstate commerce more than transportation? Not to mention 200+ years of constitutional caselaw.

So is that how libs can order me under threat of fine and jail to buy a product/service?

[KartRacerBoy]

So is that how libs can order me under threat of fine and jail to buy a product/service?

You assume I think the individual mandate is constitutional and that I am pro-Obamacare. Actually, I am afraid it's going to make a f*cked up health insurance market more f*cked up. I'm not sure the govt can do this job well enough to improve the situation.

As to constitutionality, I frankly don't know. I understand both sides of the argument and both have merits (unlimited power vs uniquesness of the market). I think it can go either way (as the sides are 1-1 at the Court of Appeals level).

I can tell you one thing that is guaranteed, however. It will be a 5-4 decision one way or the other in SCOTUS unless we get another new justice. And again that saddens me becz there are many nuanced constitutional issues at play under current constitutional law.

[Gunny]

So is that how libs can order me under threat of fine and jail to buy a product/service?It's not a "fine". Get your socialist vernacular straight. It's a "penalty" for not participating the group-think that's a guaranteed trip to mediocrity.

[fj1200]

What the moron doesn't understand is that the CAFE standards are unconstitutional as well. If I want to be able to buy a truck that gets 1 MPG , that should be my right.

I think you'll need to be a little more specific on constitutionality when a law has been on the books for over 30 years and has, presumably, survived court challenges.

[KartRacerBoy]

I think you'll need to be a little more specific on constitutionality when a law has been on the books for over 30 years and has, presumably, survived court challenges.


He means George Mason wouldn't approve of it and 200+ years of history mean nothing.

[ConHog]

I think you'll need to be a little more specific on constitutionality when a law has been on the books for over 30 years and has, presumably, survived court challenges.


So to has the Equal Rights Act of 1964. I contend it is also unconstitutional. However, I also realize that after a certain period of time a law isn't likely to be struck down as being unconstitutional, especially if it has a Court ruling in its favor.

[fj1200]

So to has the Equal Rights Act of 1964. I contend it is also unconstitutional. However, I also realize that after a certain period of time a law isn't likely to be struck down as being unconstitutional, especially if it has a Court ruling in its favor.

I'm pretty sure that makes it constitutional. The argument then goes back to original intent/strict constructionist/etc. which is completely different IMO.

I do find it interesting that you are in favor of the Dept of Education and its imposition of national standards but are opposed to the Civil Rights Act. I might find more support for the CRA than the DoEd constitutionally.

[ConHog]

I'm pretty sure that makes it constitutional. The argument then goes back to original intent/strict constructionist/etc. which is completely different IMO.

I do find it interesting that you are in favor of the Dept of Education and its imposition of national standards but are opposed to the Civil Rights Act. I might find more support for the CRA than the DoEd constitutionally.

Correction. That means that currently it is considered to be Constitutional. That of course could change if the Court made it happen.

I favor keeping the DoE, that doesn't mean it's constitutional. I frankly am mixed on that score. I can certainly see how it could be justified, I simply can NOT see how the government telling a private company who they must do business with is possibly constitutional.

[fj1200]

Correction. That means that currently it is considered to be Constitutional. That of course could change if the Court made it happen.

I favor keeping the DoE, that doesn't mean it's constitutional. I frankly am mixed on that score. I can certainly see how it could be justified, I simply can NOT see how the government telling a private company who they must do business with is possibly constitutional.

The Genie is NOT going back in that bottle.

[ConHog]

The Genie is NOT going back in that bottle.

I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't mean it couldn't .

[KartRacerBoy]

I happen to agree with you, but that doesn't mean it couldn't .

So get over it.

Do you know what would happen if the SCt got all stupid and went back on the last 70 years of commerce clause interpretation and decided Congress couldn't create things like SS, medicare, CAFE, etc? Either revolution or constitutional amendments reinstating all the above.

[fj1200]

... things like SS, medicare, CAFE, etc? Either revolution or constitutional amendments reinstating all the above.

I don't think the people give a rip about CAFE but maybe the other ones could be done correctly then. ;)

[ConHog]

So get over it.

Do you know what would happen if the SCt got all stupid and went back on the last 70 years of commerce clause interpretation and decided Congress couldn't create things like SS, medicare, CAFE, etc? Either revolution or constitutional amendments reinstating all the above.

Get over what exactly? Having an opinion? No I can't really get over that.

[KartRacerBoy]

I don't think the people give a rip about CAFE but maybe the other ones could be done correctly then. ;)

Probably not, but just think, if it wasn't reinstated we could invite DarkRex in and argue about the gas taxes, inelasticity of demand for gas and have a whomping good time!

:dance:

[KartRacerBoy]

Get over what exactly? Having an opinion? No I can't really get over that.

Well how about this? You have a tendency (to be polite) to simply state that some law that has been in effect for decades to be unconstitutional and walk away.

How about declaring your George Mason opinion and then arguing the realistic merits of the topic?

[red states rule]

You assume I think the individual mandate is constitutional and that I am pro-Obamacare. Actually, I am afraid it's going to make a f*cked up health insurance market more f*cked up. I'm not sure the govt can do this job well enough to improve the situation.

As to constitutionality, I frankly don't know. I understand both sides of the argument and both have merits (unlimited power vs uniquesness of the market). I think it can go either way (as the sides are 1-1 at the Court of Appeals level).

I can tell you one thing that is guaranteed, however. It will be a 5-4 decision one way or the other in SCOTUS unless we get another new justice. And again that saddens me becz there are many nuanced constitutional issues at play under current constitutional law.


So your real concern is that Obamacare will be struck down by a 5-4 vote UNLESS Obama can put another liberal on the Court and Obamacre is upheld by a 4-2 vote?

It is clearly uncostitutional Kart. As I asked beofe, if Obamacare is upheld what will stop the Feds from forcing you to join a gym, buy dental insurace, or purchase approved healthy foods?

[KartRacerBoy]

So your real concern is that Obamacare will be struck down by a 5-4 vote UNLESS Obama can put another liberal on the Court and Obamacre is upheld by a 4-2 vote?

It is clearly uncostitutional Kart. As I asked beofe, if Obamacare is upheld what will stop the Feds from forcing you to join a gym, buy dental insurace, or purchase approved healthy foods?



Try rereading my post that you quoted.