11th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Health Care Mandate Unconstitutional

[Tani Coyote]

First, because the fact that the government already does something does not make it constitutional.

The fact many laws, even those that seem unconstitutional, continue to exist, however, is evidence it's kind of irrelevant whether something's Constitutional or not. All we really have is the SCOTUS, and some want to take away its power of judicial review despite how useful that is.

If we got rid of the SCOTUS, constitutionality wouldn't be taking a vacation... it'd just be flat out buried. At least the SCOTUS from time to time strikes down laws.

What makes you believe insured people pay their own way? The insurance company (in the rare cases where it pays the claim in good faith) just raises everyone else's premiums to make up for it, so the cost is transferred to society whether the ER is publicly funded or paid by private insurance.

Is the raise in premiums more costly per individual than the cost in the tax raises/debt that is incurred from all the public spending that must be done on the uninsured person?

Given that the middle class gets squeezed the most by taxes, it probably isn't.

Can't we agree also that the general welfare clause doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants?

Depends. If you're right-wing, you'll probably agree. If you're left-wing, you probably care more for majoritarianism than constitutionalism, meaning, if 50%+1 approve of it, you support it being law.

 

[Junius]

The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that the Founding Fathers apparently didn't foresee that faster transportation, travel, and flow of information would bind the states so closely together that almost all commerce is interstate. The federal government's natural role is bigger than it was once upon a time, not because the feds grabbed unwarranted power, but because their constitutional powers expanded as state lines became less important.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution.

An amendment is a great idea. I would prefer amending it so they can have such power rather than assuming they should or simply allowing them to take it.

 

[Miles Teg]

An amendment is a great idea. I would prefer amending it so they can have such power rather than assuming they should or simply allowing them to take it.

Why do that? It's already clearly spelled out that the government can regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is so ubiquitous now that it's difficult to separate it from intrastate commerce except in special situations. You don't need to amend the constitution because the implications of it have changed due to circumstances.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Is the raise in premiums more costly per individual than the cost in the tax raises/debt that is incurred from all the public spending that must be done on the uninsured person?

Given that the middle class gets squeezed the most by taxes, it probably isn't.

The raise in premiums has to be more.

If the ER eats the cost and raises its prices, you're just paying for the ER visit.

If the ER gets paid by the insurance company, you're paying the cost of the ER visit plus the cost of the additional administrative staff the hospital has to hire in order to get paid, plus the administrative costs and $100M executive salaries at the insurance company.

The taxes I mentioned aren't income or property taxes so they can be avoided. But they're designed to target people who are likely to be uninsured, as a way of getting them to pay something into the system.

 

[Junius]

Why do that? It's already clearly spelled out that the government can regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is so ubiquitous now that it's difficult to separate it from intrastate commerce except in special situations. You don't need to amend the constitution because the implications of it have changed due to circumstances.

Because that much federal government power clearly wasn't the intent. Rather than interpreting that clause in a broad way we should have to authorize the government to grab more power and influence. Seems reasonable. If the voters don't want it they shouldn't be doing it and if they do i don't see the harm in going through the constitutional process.

 

[Miles Teg]

Because that much federal government power clearly wasn't the intent. Rather than interpreting that clause in a broad way we should have to authorize the government to grab more power and influence. Seems reasonable. If the voters don't want it they shouldn't be doing it and if they do i don't see the harm in going through the constitutional process.

We did do it through the constitutional process, in 1787. The meaning of the commerce clause hasn't been changed, but the applications of it are exponentially greater than they once were. Sort of like how Congress is authorized to hire privateers, but never actually does, only in reverse.

 

[Junius]

We did do it through the constitutional process, in 1787. The meaning of the commerce clause hasn't been changed, but the applications of it are exponentially greater than they once were. Sort of like how Congress is authorized to hire privateers, but never actually does, only in reverse.

I disagree about it being changed. It wasn't until after a century that it was interpreted to mean anything involving interstate commerce (which is pretty much everything) is under the jurisdiction of the feds. The wording is the same sure, but the courts have gone a new direction with it. It essentially makes the 10th amendment meaningless.

 

[Patroklos]

The Constitution is also silent on the matter of posessing an Air Force.

No, it's not. It very clearly authorizes, as well as anything else dealing with defense.

 

[Ajidica]

No, it's not. It very clearly authorizes, as well as anything else dealing with defense.

Please point out to me the line that explicitly says "Congress has the authority to raise an Air Force". Of course congress has the authority to do so because of the 'provide for the common defense' clause, but you can't go banging on about how group X is basing something off a single line in the constitution when you do the same thing to.

 

[Junius]

Please point out to me the line that explicitly says "Congress has the authority to raise an Air Force". Of course congress has the authority to do so because of the 'provide for the common defense' clause, but you can't go banging on about how group X is basing something off a single line in the constitution when you do the same thing to.

That would seem to be a little different. The air force is part of the armed forces of the united states. It is only a separate branch because it is easier that way. It may be different than what came before in technology, but it is very clearly in the same spirit. The common defense was clearly meant to protect the US and involved raising an army, navy, etc. That air force was missing isn't very troubling. Was the commerce clause meant for what it is now used for? Or was it used as an excuse to grab power? As some have asked, if the commerce clause can be used to justifiy this, where is the limit to it's power?

 

[Miles Teg]

I disagree about it being changed. It wasn't until after a century that it was interpreted to mean anything involving interstate commerce (which is pretty much everything) is under the jurisdiction of the feds. The wording is the same sure, but the courts have gone a new direction with it. It essentially makes the 10th amendment meaningless.

Have you considered the possibility that the federal government doesn't always exercise the full powers available to it? They could have taken a more expansive view of federal government at the time, but that would have been impractical and difficult to enforce. Whereas now the federal government can make laws that greatly advance the general welfare of the American people, thanks to the commerce clause.

 

[Ajidica]

Sure. The debate around the commerce clause is perfectly legit, and while I agree with the majority of the ACA and a UHC, I don't believe the mandate was the best way to go about it due to the obvious issues it brings.

My point by bringing up the air force was not to somehow equate the ACA with the air force, but to demonstrate how fallacious it is to claim something is 'unconstitutional' just because the constitution doesn't explicitly spell out that it could be done.

 

[Cutlass]

I think many americans would argue, despite Wickard, that not engaging in interstate commerce, isn't actually engaging in interstate commerce. Can't we agree also that the general welfare clause doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants?

The government can do what the Constitution does not forbid it to do. The government was designed to only do those things that there was a high degree of consensus to do. It was not designed to block the government from doing anything at all.

 

[Junius]

The government can do what the Constitution does not forbid it to do. The government was designed to only do those things that there was a high degree of consensus to do. It was not designed to block the government from doing anything at all.

What consensus was there? Also the powers not assigned to the feds belong to the states and to the people if the 10th amendment is to be believed.

 

[Cutlass]

What consensus was there? Also the powers not assigned to the feds belong to the states and to the people if the 10th amendment is to be believed.

By the time you pass the House and the Senate and the president signs it, that's a hell of a lot of consensus.

The Constitution spells out things the government cannot do. If it does not say the government cannot do it, then it is for Congress to decide. That has been true since day one. The FFs, when they were members of Congress, very clearly did not have the view of limited government that people pretend that they do today.

 

[Junius]

By the time you pass the House and the Senate and the president signs it, that's a hell of a lot of consensus.

The Constitution spells out things the government cannot do. If it does not say the government cannot do it, then it is for Congress to decide. That has been true since day one. The FFs, when they were members of Congress, very clearly did not have the view of limited government that people pretend that they do today.

How are you interpreting the original intent of the 9th and 10th amendments?

 

[Cutlass]

How are you interpreting the original intent of the 9th and 10th amendments?

Not that 'original intent' actually means a damned thing in Constitutional law, but if it did, you have to look at what Congress did early in its existence while many of the same people who were leaders of creating and ratifying the Constitution were the leaders of the government. And if you look at what they did, it is explicitly clear that they did not believe in the same 'original intent' that some people claim to believe in now.

What Constitutional provision explicitly allows for the Louisiana Purchase?

 

[Junius]

Not that 'original intent' actually means a damned thing in Constitutional law, but if it did, you have to look at what Congress did early in its existence while many of the same people who were leaders of creating and ratifying the Constitution were the leaders of the government. And if you look at what they did, it is explicitly clear that they did not believe in the same 'original intent' that some people claim to believe in now.

What Constitutional provision explicitly allows for the Louisiana Purchase?

I'm not sure that's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_purchase I believe Jefferson and others of the time believed it may indeed have been unconstitutional but that it was too good of a deal to pass up. It was ultilmately done certainly, but the idea that it was unlawful was present. There must have been some people who had this strict view. They simply lost in the end.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not sure that's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_purchase I believe Jefferson and others of the time believed it may indeed have been unconstitutional but that it was too good of a deal to pass up. It was ultilmately done certainly, but the idea that it was unlawful was present. There must have been some people who had this strict view. They simply lost in the end.

See that in the end there is where you get to the important point. There has been, from day 1, competing points of view on the issue. At no time were all of the people running the government unified on what many of these Constitutional principles mean. And that being the case, the politics wins out.

What people who claim to be 'constitutional originalists' are trying to do is an end run around the political process based on a Constitutional viewpoint which is not now, and was not in the 1790s, the dominant or governing viewpoint of the nation. "Strict Constructionism" is a fiction invented for a political purpose. It has nothing to do with US history or US law.

 

[SerriaFox]

A couple thing about car insurance:

1. It is NOT a federal mandate that you have car insurance. It might be a federal bribe to the state that the State mandate it.

2. It is not necessary to own an expensive care.

3. It is not necessary to drive over the speed limit, DWI, run stops sign.... All of which significantly raise the cost of insurance.

4. Required insurance does not protect you the driver at all (well at least in Texas, in a no-fault states it might be different).

5. You to a large degree you cannot control the Health of the Body you were given at birth. Which make the analog false.

One comment on a federal mandate, congress can require me to buy a federal program, like medicare, and tax me to pay for it. But requiring me to buy for-profit insurance goes to far.