Obamacare Insurance Mandate Ruled Constitutional

[Seleucas]

If you want to, you can read the Constitution pretty much any way you want to. I don't really find it surprising that they would find it constitutional.

[Smartephant]

Not engaging in interstate commerce ruled engaging in interstate commerce.

In other news: up is down, freedom is slavery, and there are 5 lights.

[Panzerjaeger]

I have no real comments on its constitutionality, but big props for basically getting to where we were in 1911, Americans.

I for one applaud my Nation's backward acceleration.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I have no real comments on its constitutionality, but big props for basically getting to where we were in 1911, Americans.

1911? I don't recall anything like this in 1911, but that could just be ignorance since I wasn't born yet.

[Smartephant]

I really should clarify why this is beyond stupid.

Wickard v Filburn was a case of one man growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption. He kept all that he grew for personal consumption, feeding his animals, or storage for planting the next year. During the Great Depression the feds mandated crop shortages to drive up the price of wheat (no seriously, FDR thought it was better for people to starve than for farmers to take out loans) and Roscoe Filburn was growing more than he was permitted under the federal law. When he was taken to court he argued that since he wasn't engaging in interstate commerce that the federal law didn't apply to him under the interstate Commerce Clause, that matters of intrastate commerce had to be decided at the state level.

The court, pressured by threat of stacking, was acting as a rubber stamp for FDR and the feds got their way on every fucking law until US v Lopez in 95 when the connection to the Commerce Clause was sooo strained that it was obvious to even laymen it didn't apply. It and the medical marijuana case that followed in 05 should have overturned Wickard but the courts decided to throw justice in the gutter and put a couple rounds its brain.

Wickard is probably the worst decision the court made in the 20th century, it is the Dred Scott of our time.

[Yootwopia]

I have no real comments on its constitutionality, but big props for basically getting to where we were in 1911, Americans.

1911? I don't recall anything like this in 1911.

The National Insurance Act.

[The Cat-Tribe]

That is the weakest legal reasoning I have seen in a long time. I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, because Kennedy is likely to swing to the right on this issue and strike down the, obviously unconstitutional, Obamacare bill.

You rather glaringly fail to explain, in any way whatsoever, why or how the District Court's legal reasoning is "weak" OR how the Health Care Reform Act is even vaguely close to unconstitutional.

Until you are able to do at least one of those things, your comments are just obnoxious noise.

[Nazi Flower Power]

1911? I don't recall anything like this in 1911.

The National Insurance Act.

Ohhh... I hadn't realized you were British, and didn't know that was from 1911.

[Saurisia]

America is screwed.

[Panzerjaeger]

America is screwed.

How?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Not engaging in interstate commerce ruled engaging in interstate commerce.

In other news: up is down, freedom is slavery, and there are 5 lights.

*sigh*

Ignoring for the moment that you failed completely to address any of the reasoning of the District Court or the long-standing caselaw on which it was based:

Please explain how making economic decisions that substantially affects interstate commerce is NOT subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Please explain how seeking medical treatment and paying for it by whatever means -- whether it be private insurance, public assistance, or personal savings is NOT subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. (And don't try to claim that, simply because one is not at this very instant seeking medical treatment, they will never seek medical treatment and/or their economic decisions about how to pay for medical treatment will not affect interstate commerce.)

[The Cat-Tribe]

I really should clarify why this is beyond stupid.

Wickard v Filburn was a case of one man growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption. He kept all that he grew for personal consumption, feeding his animals, or storage for planting the next year. During the Great Depression the feds mandated crop shortages to drive up the price of wheat (no seriously, FDR thought it was better for people to starve than for farmers to take out loans) and Roscoe Filburn was growing more than he was permitted under the federal law. When he was taken to court he argued that since he wasn't engaging in interstate commerce that the federal law didn't apply to him under the interstate Commerce Clause, that matters of intrastate commerce had to be decided at the state level.

The court, pressured by threat of stacking, was acting as a rubber stamp for FDR and the feds got their way on every fucking law until US v Lopez in 95 when the connection to the Commerce Clause was sooo strained that it was obvious to even laymen it didn't apply. It and the medical marijuana case that followed in 05 should have overturned Wickard but the courts decided to throw justice in the gutter and put a couple rounds its brain.

Wickard is probably the worst decision the court made in the 20th century, it is the Dred Scott of our time.

Your cute little (and very fallacious) story conveniently and conspicuously ignores the actual reasoning of Wickard and the copious decisions upholding it.

Your story is also premised on a lie. You claim the Court decided Wickard under the "threat of stacking." FDR's so-called "stacking" or "packing" plan was unveiled and defeated by Congress in 1937 (and was considered a political humilation for FDR). Wickard wasn't decided until 1942. Moreover, your implication that this "threat" still controlled SCOTUS decisions from 1937 to 2005 to the present is absurd on its face.

BUT let's assume hypothetically that Wickard was wrongly decided and that SCOTUS has been wrong in repeatedly upholding it and never reversing it in the last 68 years.

Given that the District Court discussed Wickard, but did not rely on it as the exclusive, major, or even significant basis for its decision, so fucking what?

[Greed and Death]

I really should clarify why this is beyond stupid.

Wickard v Filburn was a case of one man growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption. He kept all that he grew for personal consumption, feeding his animals, or storage for planting the next year. During the Great Depression the feds mandated crop shortages to drive up the price of wheat (no seriously, FDR thought it was better for people to starve than for farmers to take out loans) and Roscoe Filburn was growing more than he was permitted under the federal law. When he was taken to court he argued that since he wasn't engaging in interstate commerce that the federal law didn't apply to him under the interstate Commerce Clause, that matters of intrastate commerce had to be decided at the state level.

The court, pressured by threat of stacking, was acting as a rubber stamp for FDR and the feds got their way on every fucking law until US v Lopez in 95 when the connection to the Commerce Clause was sooo strained that it was obvious to even laymen it didn't apply. It and the medical marijuana case that followed in 05 should have overturned Wickard but the courts decided to throw justice in the gutter and put a couple rounds its brain.

Wickard is probably the worst decision the court made in the 20th century, it is the Dred Scott of our time.

By 1942 the threat of court stacking had long since vanished the Senate had made clear they would not go along with FDR well before the court had started siding with new deal policies. If anything the court had been more prone to rule against new deal policies during the period FDR had attempted to stack the court.
Your story lacks in historical merit, and plays on the switch in time saved nine fable told to 4thgraders when they have a 3 whole days for the great depression and the new deal.

[Sierra Lobo]

We wait for the supreme court's views on this.

Arguments to be held in reserve.

[Smartephant]

Not engaging in interstate commerce ruled engaging in interstate commerce.

In other news: up is down, freedom is slavery, and there are 5 lights.

*sigh*

I don't like your tone, boy.

Ignoring for the moment that you failed completely to address any of the reasoning of the District Court or the long-standing caselaw on which it was based:

I started to in my subsequent post. This started with the Wickard case. That case was wrongly decided by a court threatened by the Roosevelt administration's court packing plan and needs to be overturned. The idea behind the ruling in that case was that if one man was permitted to exceed the wheat production limits on his own land for personal consumption he would not need to buy wheat from other producers and would have a negative effect on interstate commerce. An effect they made no attempt to quantify or calculate.

Besides, the legal basis for the case, Gibbon v Ogden really was a matter of interstate commerce. At issue was access to waterways that formed and crossed state borders. That's interstate commerce because there are transactions between parties in multiple states.

It did not mean that someone choosing not to engage in commerce of any kind was subject to regulation and penalty under the Commerce Clause because they weren't doing their patriotic duty in buying American made merchandise or some bullshit like that.

Please explain how making economic decisions that substantially affects interstate commerce is NOT subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" means regulating trade done between people within the US and foreign entities, trade between that crosses state lines, and trade with Native American tribes. If there is no transaction, especially if there is no transaction that crosses state lines, then it falls to the state or local government to regulate the activity, product, etc. It does not mean that a cancer patient that grows their own marijuana for personal consumption in the state of California should be subject to federal bans on the substance.

Please explain how seeking medical treatment and paying for it by whatever means -- whether it be private insurance, public assistance, or personal savings is NOT subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. (And don't try to claim that, simply because one is not at this very instant seeking medical treatment, they will never seek medical treatment and/or their economic decisions about how to pay for medical treatment will not affect interstate commerce.)

If you don't cross state lines to seek medical treatment you are engaging in intrastate commerce. If you argue that everything, even simply living, substantially affects interstate commerce then the Commerce Clause can be used by the feds to regulate, mandate, or ban anything, anywhere, anytime. It defeats the purpose of state and local governments and grants the feds unlimited power to do most anything, even telling you what brand of car to own or what foods to eat.

Remember that the Interstate Commerce Clause exists to define the authority of the States and Federal governments and limit the reach of the feds to interstate matters.

[The Twilight Shadow]

You know it just occurs to me that Obama insisting you buy medical insurance is just one more way of making one dependent on the state. I mean one doesn't have to enter into the private sector if they don't want to. They can grow their own food (presumably), live off the grid and volunteer their labour for others. However if you are required, by law, to BUY insurrance that means you are required by law to pursue monatary gain, even if you have no desire to do so. Shouldn't it be someone's choice how they wish to make a living? Shouldn't it be one's choice whether they want to be a part of the economy at all or whether to be totally self sustaining? I'm all for helping others but making a private purchase compulsory just because your alive seems a bit authoritarian. Ironic since this is not something I'd expect from a democrat. Why couldn't he just have beefed up the public health care system? I mean every American does have to pay taxes still right? It would amount to the same thing without infringing on your economic freedoms. Sure you pay higher taxes but at least you retain your ability to choose what you want to buy and whether to buy it. Anyway just food for thought.

[Bluth Corporation]

It isn't ruled as constitutional until it gets to the Supreme Court so it isn't over until it's over. I don't believe the commerce clause can legally compel people to engage in commerce. The mandate punishes citizens for mere inactivity in getting health insurance.

Not entirely accurate...
Judge George Steeh ruled that it was constitutional, so until his decision is overturned by a higher court it is constitutional.

Nope.

The actual Constitutionality of any provision is metaphysically independent of what any court (including the Supreme Court) says it is.

[Rolling squid]

Not entirely accurate...
Judge George Steeh ruled that it was constitutional, so until his decision is overturned by a higher court it is constitutional.

Nope.

The actual Constitutionality of any provision is metaphysically independent of what any court (including the Supreme Court) says it is.

lol wut? As per Marbury v. Madison and around two and a quarter centuries of prescient, constitutionality is exactly what the courts say. There is no provision for the supernatural in the constitution.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Well, if congress were to tell us what was in the Health Care Bill and not hide it from us, despite their stressing "transparency," maybe the public would do something about it.

Instead we get Nancy Pelosi...
"Let's vote on the bill, then let's read it"

1. The various bills were posted and available for anyone who wanted to to read. If you didn't that your fault.

2. There were also many analyses of the bills out there -- most importantly, the objective analyses of the Congressional Budget Office.

3. Nancy Pelosi did not say that. That is a lie.

BTW, here is a good source summarizing information about the Health Care Reform Act and its impacts.

The haste with which Congress passed and amended the bill really precluded any discussion.
Ms Pelosi did say, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." So if you want to split hairs, go ahead. The meaning is very much the same.

[Qwcasd]

This is great.

I think we should just do single payer, but keep hospital private, and negotiate everything, at a local level.

[Qwcasd]

This is going to become the next Housing Crisis, only it's going to be in the Health Insurance industry.

I can see the entire thing falling to the ground, burning like the Hindenburg.

Oh the humanity, why can't we choose over health insurance? I'm sure that you are all aware of the fact that if you don't own health insurance you will be fined in your taxes...

That's like being fined if you don't own an American Car, or if you don't do this or don't do that. This is a socialist authoritarianism that is springing up and people won't regret it until their ability to speak out against it is taken away!

And it's not like the insurance companies can choose to give you coverage. They HAVE to give you coverage, even if they lose money in the process. The Housing Crisis came about the same way: the damn bill is passed, the banks HAVE to give you the loan for your house REGARDLESS of if you cannot pay for the house, you default, your house is foreclosed, and everyone loses in the end.

I think that this is wholly unconstitutional. Again, this is NOT about the Right to Have Health Insurance, this is about the Right to Choose to Have Health Insurance or Not Have Health Insurance, and that right is being horribly infringed.

The same with the Insurance Companies. The companies HAVE to give you health insurance even if you are too old or have some kind of complicated condition, which means that in the case of the latter the insurance companies would shell out tremendous amounts of money to keep you healthy, or in the case of the former in which they shell out tremendous amounts of money to keep you healthy and they don't get it back because you die sooner or later. Would you put money into a car that is about to completely fall apart? Would you let your friend borrow your car despite the fact that every single car he drives ends up in a twisted pile of burning metal?

I say that the Obama Administration is infringing on the rights of the people one too many times. The people of the United States of America did NOT want this Obamacare bill imposed on them, no matter what ACORN or CNN or C-SPAN or whatever the Communoliberal spin doctors say!

Source for any of that? And it is completely different from being mandated to buy a car.

[Bluth Corporation]

Nope.

The actual Constitutionality of any provision is metaphysically independent of what any court (including the Supreme Court) says it is.

lol wut? As per Marbury v. Madison and around two and a quarter centuries of prescient, constitutionality is exactly what the courts say.

So the courts get to be the final authority on the Constitution because the courts claimed they were the final authority on the Constitution? That hardly seems like a rational position to take.

All the courts decide is which interpretation of the Constitution will constrain government actions. That does not mean that that interpretation is necessarily the correct one.

[Rolling squid]

lol wut? As per Marbury v. Madison and around two and a quarter centuries of prescient, constitutionality is exactly what the courts say.

So the courts get to be the final authority on the Constitution because the courts claimed they were the final authority on the Constitution? That hardly seems like a rational position to take.

All the courts decide is which interpretation of the Constitution will constrain government actions. That does not mean that that interpretation is necessarily the correct one.

In a legal sense, yes it does.

[New Chalcedon]

if the republicans werent dicks we could fix whatever turns out to be wrong with the bill.

For the millionth fricking time, the Democrats have the majority in the Congress, and have had the majority ever since Bush! They don't need the Republicans to get things done! They can't do anything because they can't get their act together.

Anyone who thinks that the bill is constitutional needs to get their head checked. Anyone who honestly believes that the Republicans are to blame for the lack of action in congress needs an operation, because their heads are so far up their asses that they cannot freely remove them on their own...

Also for the nth time, the Democrats don't have a sufficient majority.

Cloture vote - a procedural vote required to bring debate on a bill before the Senate to an end and acutally vote on the bill. Requires, under the proecdural rules of the 111th (current) Senate, 60 votes in the affirmative.

Democratic Senators: Number 57, and the Democrats historically are not known for marching in line, heads turned to salute their party leader, unlike Republicans.

Republican Senators: Number 41 - provided all 41 vote against cloture, it is mathematically impossible for Reid (as the Democratic leader in the Senate) to scrape up 60 votes.

Ind Senators: Two in total - one left-wing (Sanders, I-VT) and one right-wing (Lieberman, I-CT). Anything that pleases one will annoy the other.

To simply repeat the mantra of "Democrats have a majority, therefore anything not done is their fault!!!one!!1111" wilfully ignores the pertinent facts (that 50 is not the bar which any bill must jump in today's Senate - 60 is), which point to an organised pattern of unified Republican obstructionism over every single matter of significance. The GOP is betting that a majority of people who can be bothered voting this year will be uninformed people like you - moreover, that they won't want to be informed, no matter who tries to inform them. Much like you.

EDIT: Prime example of a majority being insufficient: Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. Failed to overcome a Republican filibuster with the final vote being 56-43. 56 Senators - a clear majority - voted to allow the bill to come to a vote, but the incredibly recalcitrant GOP was able to prevent it even though they're the minority.

[Ashmoria]

You know it just occurs to me that Obama insisting you buy medical insurance is just one more way of making one dependent on the state. I mean one doesn't have to enter into the private sector if they don't want to. They can grow their own food (presumably), live off the grid and volunteer their labour for others. However if you are required, by law, to BUY insurrance that means you are required by law to pursue monatary gain, even if you have no desire to do so. Shouldn't it be someone's choice how they wish to make a living? Shouldn't it be one's choice whether they want to be a part of the economy at all or whether to be totally self sustaining? I'm all for helping others but making a private purchase compulsory just because your alive seems a bit authoritarian. Ironic since this is not something I'd expect from a democrat. Why couldn't he just have beefed up the public health care system? I mean every American does have to pay taxes still right? It would amount to the same thing without infringing on your economic freedoms. Sure you pay higher taxes but at least you retain your ability to choose what you want to buy and whether to buy it. Anyway just food for thought.

you still have to have money to pay your property taxes.