Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act: Is the mandate constitutional? (372 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If PPACA prevails in court... (0+ / 0-)
    1) The US government can regulate any part of the economy.
    ...this will be, in all meaningful manners, the law of the land.

    This is the last stand of Interstate Commerce restriction/justification.  If the mandate flies, anything flies.

    •  You mean, "anything flies" like the Patriot Act... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, Clem Yeobright

      ... to move over to another area where Congress exercised its formidable powers to rip some huge holes in the Bill of Rights?

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:58:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eh, wrong. (7+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but that's just a ridiculous argument.

      If the Act is upheld, the reason will be because it falls within the powers of Congress under current precedent.

      This is no last stand. This is not a question of expanding federal power. This is not unprecedented.

      Lopez, Morrison, etc. still offer restrictions on Congress's power under the CC.

      If you want to lament the end of all restrictions on the Commerce Clause, you should have done so for Raich. This is a much easier case.

      •  There's no precedent forcing a person to (0+ / 0-)

        buy something. George Washington telling his soldiers to buy guns notwithstanding.

        "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

        by eXtina on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:08:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Commerce Clause does not make the buying/not buying destinction.

          and btw, the most famous Commerce Clause precedent in history IS basically precedent about forcing somebody to do something (Wickard)

          They forced a farmer to destroy his own crops that he was not selling but only using himself, because then he wasn't buying it.

          "The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government."
          •  ? (0+ / 0-)

            Was Congress regulating the farming business, or the individual? That's where I see the distinction.

            The power of Congress to require health insurance companies to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions is one thing. Requiring individuals to purchase a product is a horse of a different color.

            What law has Congress passed, at any time in history, that mandated an individial purchase a product?

            A state requiring the owner of a vehicle purchase car insurance os a lame comparision, please don't try that on me... I am not Buying it

        •  That's not how precedent works (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jonathan, FogCityJohn, Clem Yeobright

          but you're wrong anyway.

          First of all, the commerce clause permits "regulation" of interstate commerce. You're argument necessarily suggests that a "regulation" cannot be a mandate to "buy something."
          Why not? If forcing someone not to buy something (a ban) is a regulation, what logic is there that the opposite requirement is not a "regulation"?

          Then there's the false notion that you are "forced" to "buy something" anyway. If you don't buy it (or are not exempt) you must pay a penalty. Even if you think that's basically the same thing as forcing you, good for you, but thats what is actually going on.

          Furthermore, you are also dead wrong anyway. There IS precedent for forcing a person to buy something, and your Washington comment hinted at it.

          He wasn't the only one to "force" the purchase of guns- Congress, yes Congress!, did it to. Among the provisions of the Second Militia Act of 1792, was this mandate:

          That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack
          •  'so enrolled' (0+ / 0-)

            presumably there are people not 'so enrolled'

            Again, there are people to whom it doesn't apply, unlike the mandate

            And 'good for you' doesn't seem like much of an argument. Yes, either way you are 'forced' to spend money on something you don't want or don't agree with

            "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

            by eXtina on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:43:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Militia service was also mandated (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, Clem Yeobright, ogre

              You were required to be enrolled as well:

              That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
              There are, in fact, people to whom the mandate does not apply as well.

              No- "good for you" was me dismissing your argument as your own personal opinion and not relevant to the question of constitutionality. If you are going to argue that it is constitutionally impermissible to "force" someone to "buy something," (which I don't think is true anyway), that argument does not become relevant until you show that this is such a situation.

              There is no "forcing." There is an obligation to either do the act or pay a penalty.

              Your personal belief that these are functionally equivalent notwithstanding, as a matter of law they are clearly distinguishable.

              If an officer come to your door and tells you to either pay him $50 or allow him to enter your home, it is not the same thing as if he forced his way in. Both may be constitutionally prohibited, but they are not the same thing.

          •  Provide, how? (0+ / 0-)

            I can't see anything that suggests that a purchase was mandated. What if the enrolled already the required items, was he expected to purchase the items anyway?

        •  well (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jonathan, Clem Yeobright, ogre

          the first time the federal government forced people to buy insurance via a legal mandate was in 1798.

          anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

          by chopper on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:26:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  oh? (0+ / 0-)

          Do you have a car? Do you have car insurance?

    •  Not even radical conservatives (5+ / 0-)

      deny "the US government can regulate any part of the economy."

      Of course "regulate" mean something different to them.

      In any event, you are not a progressive I assume.

    •  I don't see the point in restricting the fed. govt (0+ / 0-)

      to interstate commerce, especially in the 21st century, when we have a much better understanding of how commerce is practically never truly local anymore.  

      It is currently the case that the US gov't can regulate any commerce, by claiming it is interstate, somehow.  This amendment removes the need to jump through those hoops.  If the principle is made clear by constitutional amendment, there will be no need for courts to decide the matter for us.

      You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

      by nominalize on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:55:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It would be nice... (0+ / 0-) have it democratically amended via the proper process rather than by judicial fiat, but I don't think we're going to get that.

        If people wouldn't pass the ERA because it was redundant, they certainly aren't going to pass that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site