PDA

View Full Version : Liberals exited over nothing. The SCOTUS will kill this bill.



Veritas Aequitas
03-23-2010, 12:18 AM
Assuming the fed gov't CAN regulate health care under the interstate commerce clause, NOT BUYING health care has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

This whole bill relies on the mandated healthcare provision.


This is so blatantly unconstitutional it is laughable.

Rockntractor
03-23-2010, 12:29 AM
Assuming the fed gov't CAN regulate health care under the interstate commerce clause, NOT BUYING health care has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

This whole bill relies on the mandated healthcare provision.


This is so blatantly unconstitutional it is laughable.
I would have to agree with you but we are no longer a nation of laws with a binding constitution. I will really be surprised if the supreme court rules against this. If they do hear the case, when will they hear it and will the administration listen and obey?

djones520
03-23-2010, 12:32 AM
I would have to agree with you but we are no longer a nation of laws with a binding constitution. I will really be surprised if the supreme court rules against this. If they do hear the case, when will they hear it and will the administration listen and obey?

Something like 9 state Attorney Generals ready to head to DC the day Obama signs it into law, with 38 states all together stating the same intentions. This isn't something that's going to get swept under the rug.

Veritas Aequitas
03-23-2010, 12:39 AM
The DUmp and some other impartial/liberal message boards are treating people who question the constitutionality of the bill like birthers. This whole ordeal is absolutely insane.

Milly
03-23-2010, 12:42 AM
I find myself wondering if Obama's shot at SCOTUS in his SOTU is going to come back to haunt him. What better way to reassert themselves as an equal branch of government than by stomping on this POS bill?

Veritas Aequitas
03-23-2010, 12:44 AM
I find myself wondering if Obama's shot at SCOTUS in his SOTU is going to come back to haunt him. What better way to reassert themselves as an equal branch of government than by stomping on this POS bill?

Who knows. To be on the SCOTUS you have to have an ego as big as the Washington Monument, so they may not forget his cheap shot at them. But then again all he needs is 5 votes on his pocket. Is it still illegal to bribe a judge? Or is it fine now like it is to bribe congressman?

zBoots
03-23-2010, 12:57 AM
The SCOTUS is one of the thinist straws of them all. SCOTUS scuttling this stands about as much chance as a veto. They will not just toss the whole thing. There are clearly precedents in just about everything in this bill, including insurance purchasing. They will surely take some specific legal challenges to specific issues. If some those are found to be unconstitutional, it will simply be "corrected" by the legislature or fixed or whatever.

The constitution today is such a bastardization of its original intent, just about every thing is constitutional.

Milly
03-23-2010, 01:05 AM
It's going to make for good theater, anyway.

Swampfox
03-23-2010, 01:07 AM
There has not been a Supreme Court case concerning whether the Federal Government can force you to engage in commerce as a condition of citizenship. It's new territory for the Court. The Commerce Clause has already been stretched well passed it's original intention, but not this far. We'll have to wait and see what the Court says.

Personally, I think the mandate will be declared unconstitutional. The rest of the bill will stand as far as I know. The bill is too massive to know whether some other chunks of it might fail in terms of constitutionality as well.

Apocalypse
03-23-2010, 01:37 AM
Don't hold your breath. If at best, they will kill only PARTS of this bill. Much like the corporate funding of campaign advertising. They didn't kill that law ether in its entirety, just the parts of it that violated the constitution.

Wei Wu Wei
03-23-2010, 07:28 PM
Assuming the fed gov't CAN regulate health care under the interstate commerce clause, NOT BUYING health care has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

This whole bill relies on the mandated healthcare provision.


This is so blatantly unconstitutional it is laughable.

I don't think so. While it seems unconstitional to pass a law saying you must buy insurance, here's how I understand this mandate works:

A new tax is issued on everyone for $1000. If you purchase or have health insurance, you receive a tax credit.

There seems little room for a constitutionality challenge because the Government can levy taxes and issue tax credits as incentives.

Wei Wu Wei
03-23-2010, 07:29 PM
The DUmp and some other impartial/liberal message boards are treating people who question the constitutionality of the bill like birthers. This whole ordeal is absolutely insane.

I think the constitutionality question is obvious because of the way the mandate is being talked about on the news as some sort of new law and punishment. It's simply a new tax with credits for the insured.

Swampfox
03-23-2010, 07:55 PM
If you polled a hundred attorneys, 50% would probably say it's unconstitutional and 50% would probably disagree and say it is. Personally, I think it's not. This is a Constitutional question that has not been decided by the Supreme Court yet. We'll have to wait and see what they say.

NJCardFan
03-23-2010, 08:08 PM
Assuming the fed gov't CAN regulate health care under the interstate commerce clause, NOT BUYING health care has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

This whole bill relies on the mandated healthcare provision.


This is so blatantly unconstitutional it is laughable.
Not so fast. This is the same SCOTUS that upheld the Kelo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) decision.

That said, IMO what makes this unconstitutional is mandating a private citizen to purchase something from a private company.

Articulate_Ape
03-23-2010, 08:09 PM
I would have to agree with you but we are no longer a nation of laws with a binding constitution. I will really be surprised if the supreme court rules against this. If they do hear the case, when will they hear it and will the administration listen and obey?

I tend to agree with you, Rock.

aerojarod
03-24-2010, 08:41 AM
Not so fast. This is the same SCOTUS that upheld the Kelo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) decision.

That said, IMO what makes this unconstitutional is mandating a private citizen to purchase something from a private company.

And to further your point:

If the authority for the mandate is based in the Interstate Commerce clause, I don't recall seeing anything in this bill that removes the existing laws that restrict Insurers from selling across State lines. If that is the case, then there's really no "interstate commerce" taking place. What forum does the Fed. Gov. have to force this mandate?

sgrooms
03-24-2010, 08:59 AM
There is another solution here. If (when?) Republicans take over the House next year, if they have the balls they can simply vote to not fund those new agencies. With no funding, they can't work until the Supreme Court has a chance to hear the arguement.

I personally believe it to be unconstitutional. How can govt force anyone to purchase a good simply because they have been born here?

THE RESISTANCE
03-24-2010, 11:03 AM
Something like 9 state Attorney Generals ready to head to DC the day Obama signs it into law, with 38 states all together stating the same intentions. This isn't something that's going to get swept under the rug.


Thirty eight states is an interesting number!

It takes three fourths of the states to admend the Constitution outside and over any action of the Congress.

Wei Wu Wei
03-24-2010, 12:11 PM
There is another solution here. If (when?) Republicans take over the House next year, if they have the balls they can simply vote to not fund those new agencies. With no funding, they can't work until the Supreme Court has a chance to hear the arguement.

I personally believe it to be unconstitutional. How can govt force anyone to purchase a good simply because they have been born here?

Obama will veto it.

Also, I already explained how it's obviously not unconstitutional. They aren't mandating everyone to buy insurance they are taxing everyone and crediting those who do buy insurance.

sgrooms
03-24-2010, 01:27 PM
They are citing the commerce clause of the constitution. That particular clause allows the govt to regulate interstate commerce.

You cannot buy health insurance across state lines. How is that interstate? Intrastate, yes.

enslaved1
03-24-2010, 10:59 PM
Obama will veto it.

Also, I already explained how it's obviously not unconstitutional. They aren't mandating everyone to buy insurance they are taxing everyone and crediting those who do buy insurance.

Of course he will. But, odds right now are good that Reps will win enough seats to overturn said veto. Remember, checks and balances?

Lager
03-24-2010, 11:13 PM
I don't think so. While it seems unconstitional to pass a law saying you must buy insurance, here's how I understand this mandate works:

A new tax is issued on everyone for $1000. If you purchase or have health insurance, you receive a tax credit.

There seems little room for a constitutionality challenge because the Government can levy taxes and issue tax credits as incentives.

You are really pulling that out of your ass. You know you have no intellectual honesty. Instead of simply admitting that there's parts of this bill you're not comfortable with, or don't understand, you perform the most ridiculous tap dancing and parsing simply because you feel you have to defend everything Obama, from anything conservative.

Lager
03-24-2010, 11:21 PM
Before this bill was signed, you were complaining about the evil insurance companies and how obscene their profits were and how they were the scourge of the earth. Now you're riding shotgun for a crappy piece of legislation that does what? You guessed it.... mandates that everyone in the country now must purchase insurance from those same companies!