Supremes will strike down Obamacare?

[Angst]

Hope so in case I should return, but I'd say in general the likelihood is at least 75% that it'll be overturned. I'm no constitutional scholar (nor is the president, as it seems) but I don't know how the federal government can seriously consider mandating the American people, among other things, purchase health insurance from a select group of companies.

You didn't like it formed with tax payments. You lie as you lay.

 

[Tee Kay]

Get rid of Obamacare and replace it with universal healthcare

 

[JollyRoger]

So that would be an argument for Congress regulating interstate insurance, not making everyone buy it. Can Congress mandate dietary laws? Food is commerce and obese people are costing us $$$... Hell, by that argument Congress could mandate we buy and eat lousy food too. Maybe Congress decides the corn sugar market needs help so the crap is put into our food for us... Oh wait

If they can do a mandate using military powers, why not the commerce clause? As for your hypotheticals, the limiting principle is the necessary and proper clause. Dealing with freeriders by eliminating them is necesary and proper in this instance.

 

[kochman]

When the constitution was written, slavery was legal and women had far less rights. Once we admit that the founding fathers weren't perfect, we'll all be a lot better off.
"Obama care" as neo-cons call it, is not socialism, although it should be. At least it's a step in the right direction.

Um, do you know what neo-con means? It isn't a conservative outright... it's someone who believes in pushing the "American" way of governing, etc on other countries... like Bush, like Obama...
No, the founding fathers weren't perfect, no one said they were, they had a system in place to correct things that needed correcting... amendments.
Or, should we just throw those out the window now?

Irrelevant. SCOTUS has ZERO right to vote based on their own opinions. ZERO. Tenth Amendment automatically takes this power. "No" votes should win nine to none.

10th amendment went down the pipes with the Civil War man, Fed trumps.

Showing up and saying it:
Please don't screw this up, America.

ACA was the screw up... UHC would be better, the status quo would be better... ACA is unconstitutional and stupid. It doesn't apply fairness in the law.

The conservatives only vote their opinions or their politics. They never vote the letter of the Constitution. And neither would you.

But you would? And dems don't vote their opinions or their politics?
You really come off like a broken record.

Funny how it is that the conservatives are the ones crippling the fiscal and economic future of the country.

We should just lynch all conservatives, because clearly they are a bad force. Then, we'll only have liberals, and everything will be glorious.

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will not go activist here, will not substitute its judgment for that of the elected representatives of we the people, and will not legislate from the bench.

Well, they have a job... determine if something is Constitutional... if they decide ACA is unconstitutional, that does not make them activist, even though you may not like the decision.

Reading a conservative site where they are saying that so called Obamacare is unconstitutional in that it forces people to do things against their will.
If so called Obamacare is unconstitutional does that not make Medicare and Social security the same as it takes money via a payroll tax which no employee as an option on ?

Because everyone pays into Medicare and Social Security... not everyone will pay into this other thing... some will have to pay, others will have companies that pay for them.

If they can do a mandate using military powers, why not the commerce clause? As for your hypotheticals, the limiting principle is the necessary and proper clause. Dealing with freeriders by eliminating them is necesary and proper in this instance.

Isn't the commerce clause for INTER state commerce?
HC can't cross state lines, which is one of the major flaws in the current system.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, they have a job... determine if something is Constitutional... if they decide ACA is unconstitutional, that does not make them activist, even though you may not like the decision.

According to what rightwingers have taught me about judicial activism, it makes them activists, especially if I do not like the decision.

 

[warpus]

Sorry America, but if this happens I'm going to be laughing at you pretty hard.

You used to be a country I dreamed about living in.. now I wouldn't really want to! Your people are great, but it's even more annoying to come visit them these days, due to all the border shenanigans.

Either way don't take this as an anti-America rant

 

[kochman]

According to what rightwingers have taught me about judicial activism, it makes them activists, especially if I do not like the decision.

Ah, the two wrongs makes a right argument.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ah, the two wrongs makes a right argument.

Not really. Just having a bit of fun with those that used to scream judicial activism at every turn (and still do hen cases do not turn out the way they want them to).

 

[kramerfan86]

The thing that will hurt this I think is that they are forcing you to purchase something from private industry. Its one thing when the government forces you to give money to the government and participate in a government program, but forcing you to participate in a private market is a new step.

 

[Ayatollah So]

So far the crowd generally expresses a LOT of uncertainty, and there is no significant correlation between what you wish would happen and what you expect.

Wow, it's so ... rational.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Even though Im sort of on the fence about the law (think some parts of it are good but overall the nature of the negotiations made it a pretty sloppy bill), but I really dont like setting the precedent of letting the government force purchases. Its one thing to force something like car insurance which is an optional addition to your life, but Im not a huge fan of the idea government can just force me to buy whatever it deems best for me.

we should also keep in mind that mandated car insurance is (1) only at the state level and (2) only liability rather than collision insurance. It is not actually insurance for your car, but insurance for whatever you hit. The car insurance mandate is more like a workers' compensation insurance mandate than a health insurance mandate.

 

[trader/warrior]

Just for the record, my diocese is also very concerned with the new law, as the church would be required to provide birth control medication and other medical procedures that go against the teachings of the church. Whether or not you agree, that does constitute an infringement on freedom of religion.

All churches doubling as medical/birth control centers? Seriously?

 

[timtofly]

The thing that will hurt this I think is that they are forcing you to purchase something from private industry. Its one thing when the government forces you to give money to the government and participate in a government program, but forcing you to participate in a private market is a new step.

Has not the precedent been set that private corp. can become federal if they fail, until they can get back on their feet?

If we thought buying houses, or cars can become problematic, why would healthcare be any different?

 

[GhostWriter16]

10th amendment went down the pipes with the Civil War man, Fed trumps.

10th amendment was never amended out so its still in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the North won a war with military might doesn't change what the Constitution actually says.

 

[kochman]

10th amendment was never amended out so its still in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the North won a war with military might doesn't change what the Constitution actually says.

Ok, well, let me know when the 10th Amendment trumps something the Fed makes law...

 

[Antilogic]

10th amendment was never amended out so its still in the Bill of Rights. The fact that the North won a war with military might doesn't change what the Constitution actually says.

Exactly, the Union victory in the ACW doesn't negate the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the tax clause, or the 16th amendment passed afterwards.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ok, well, let me know when the 10th Amendment trumps something the Fed makes law...

It does, every freaking time. The states simply have not tried to apply the tenth in awhile, and last time they did, they were physically crushed. Its like saying "The right to murder trumps the right to live, and has since people started getting killed."

Exactly, the Union victory in the ACW doesn't negate the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the tax clause, or the 16th amendment passed afterwards.

"Necessary and Proper" is vague, but I think it really has to fit both necessary and proper: NECESSARY, not just conveinient. Otherwise, we might as well throw out everything and just give the Fed unlimited power (Though we basically haven't anyway.) Since this law is obviously not NECESSARY we can't apply that.

The 16th amendment allows for an income tax, not for the government to force you to buy something from a company.

Not sure how the commerce clause is applicible.

 

[Antilogic]

"Necessary and Proper" is vague, but I think it really has to fit both necessary and proper: NECESSARY, not just conveinient. Otherwise, we might as well throw out everything and just give the Fed unlimited power (Though we basically haven't anyway.) Since this law is obviously not NECESSARY we can't apply that.

The 16th amendment allows for an income tax, not for the government to force you to buy something from a company.

Not sure how the commerce clause is applicible.

We've had a lively debate in the other two threads where all of this has come up, instead of recapitulating the arguments here I'll just encourage you to look at the other threads in OT on the subject. The commerce clause, as with probably 90% of what the Congress actually does, is the primary justification.

However, I was agreeing with your remark the arguments as to the constitutionality of this or any other legislation is not derived from the result of the ACW.

 

[JollyRoger]

"Necessary and Proper" is vague, but I think it really has to fit both necessary and proper: NECESSARY, not just conveinient. Otherwise, we might as well throw out everything and just give the Fed unlimited power (Though we basically haven't anyway.) Since this law is obviously not NECESSARY we can't apply that.

Necessary & proper means necessary and proper to achieve a legitimate Congressional power (power under the Commerce Clause, here). Day 3 of the arguments pretty much demonstrated that it was necessary that the free rider problem be dealt with to have a functioning statute. The word you need to be focusing on is proper - was the mandate a proper way to deal with the free rider problem. Given the use of a mandate in as early as 1792 (during the framing generation), I think the answer to that question is yes.

If necessary meant the only way an end could be achieved, then almost no law would be Constitutional because you can always point to a different way a law could be structured to achieve a goal. No law is necessary in the sense you are wanting the word used as there is always an alternative law that could achieve the same objective.

 

[Evie]

Sorry America, but if this happens I'm going to be laughing at you pretty hard.

You used to be a country I dreamed about living in.. now I wouldn't really want to! Your people are great, but it's even more annoying to come visit them these days, due to all the border shenanigans.

Either way don't take this as an anti-America rant

This, so much. I love America, and to a large extent feel more kinship with Americans than with English Canadians (though that's changed a bit since I moved to Ottawa), but short of Canada suddenly going fascist or something no amount of tax break and money in my pocket could convince me to ever live in a country where the constitution is used to effectively deny healthcare to those who need it.