You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AZ âBirtherâ Bill Passes Senate
- Thread starter bugscoe
- Start date
An paper on the constitutionality of the mandatte from Reagan's Solicitor General:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/do...s-that-obamacare-is-constitutional.php?page=2
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/do...s-that-obamacare-is-constitutional.php?page=2
Quote from seneca_roman:
How is that relevant to the constitutionality of the mandate? Some of the relevant precedents go back 70 years or more.
Ugh,
<a title="View Vinson Ruling on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905274" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Vinson Ruling</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/47905274/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="" scrolling="no" id="doc_38184" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>
The Vinson ruling is subject to Supreme Court review. That is where this will be decided. The scholars in this field see it being ruled constitutional.
A quick summary:
"Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this lawâs constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?
Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. For the system to work, all individuals â healthy and sick, risk-prone and risk-averse â must participate to the extent of their economic ability.
In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be âdifficult, if not impossibleâ to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here: by restricting certain economic choices of individuals, we ensure the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congressâs power to establish.
The justices arenât likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic âactivity,â not âinactivity,â like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who donât purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they canât pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation
"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1
A quick summary:
"Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this lawâs constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?
Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. For the system to work, all individuals â healthy and sick, risk-prone and risk-averse â must participate to the extent of their economic ability.
In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be âdifficult, if not impossibleâ to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here: by restricting certain economic choices of individuals, we ensure the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congressâs power to establish.
The justices arenât likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic âactivity,â not âinactivity,â like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who donât purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they canât pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation
"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1
Quote from seneca_roman:
The Vinson ruling is subject to Supreme Court review. That is where this will be decided. The scholars in this field see it being ruled constitutional.
A quick summary:
"Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this lawâs constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?
Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. For the system to work, all individuals â healthy and sick, risk-prone and risk-averse â must participate to the extent of their economic ability.
In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be âdifficult, if not impossibleâ to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here: by restricting certain economic choices of individuals, we ensure the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congressâs power to establish.
The justices arenât likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic âactivity,â not âinactivity,â like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who donât purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they canât pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation
"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1
The NY Times believes in all liberal fairy tales.
You might ponder Judge Thomas's comments in this case:
Gonzales v. Raich, regarding homegrown mj for medical use.
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingâ-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
This case was upheld.
Seneca
ps - Thomas will as he has in the past in similar cases vote against the individual mandate section of Obama care.
Gonzales v. Raich, regarding homegrown mj for medical use.
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingâ-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
This case was upheld.
Seneca
ps - Thomas will as he has in the past in similar cases vote against the individual mandate section of Obama care.
Quote from bugscoe:
The NY Times believes in all liberal fairy tales.
Ad hominem is childish as this is an editorial by one of the foremost constitutional scholars, L. Tribe.
Did you miss the post where REAGAN's Solicitor General said about the same? Care to attack him?
Or do you just attack anyone who disagrees with you?
BTW-a good place to start (cases) is the landmark McCulloch v Maryland (1819) which established:
1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
S
1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
S
They definitely promote the liberal bias in their reporting. There are an equal number, if not more, opinions expecting the eventual SCOTUS ruling to go against ObamaCare. The liberals here can post all the rulings they like going back to the 19th century but we won't know how this goes down until SCOTUS rules. My personal feeling is that they will NOT uphold the insurance mandate in ObamaCare for several reasons that you can read in other opinions by googling the subject.Quote from bugscoe:
The NY Times believes in all liberal fairy tales.