Skip to main content

View Diary: The Necessary And Proper Clause And The Individual Mandate (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  as for the "necessity" of this to accomplish.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kareylou, Gary Norton, dehrha02, SpamNunn

    .... a regulatory goal, that's flat-out bullshit.

    The goal could be accomplished with a public option or single payer.

    The real "necessity" of this is to accomplish the unstated "regulatory goal" of delivering all of us into the vast gaping maw of the health insurance monsters, so they can use our money to flip a few more elections their way.  

    So: it's either kill off the monsters, or give government a new power it never had before, that will be used by flocks of monsters yet to come.  Which shall it be?

    Hint: there's more than one way to kill off a monster, and the folks in Wisconsin have been doing a darn good job of it.  

    •  agreed n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate, that is strength undefeatable--Helen Keller

      by kareylou on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 11:58:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Necessary and proper" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico
      If, then, their intention had been, by this clause, to restrain the free use of means which might otherwise have been implied, that intention would have been inserted in another place, and would have been expressed in terms resembling these. "In carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all others," &c., "no laws shall be passed but such as are necessary and proper." Had the intention been to make this clause restrictive, it would unquestionably have been so in form, as well as in effect. . .

      [W]e think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 01:04:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you missed the key point: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dehrha02, SpamNunn

        "...but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution..."

        NOWHERE in the Constitution does government have the right to compel private parties to enter into contracts with each other, which is the overarching generic case of compelling individuals to purchase products from corporations.

        NOWHERE, period.

        The ONLY way to extract that is with a tautology to the effect that whatever Congress does (e.g. compelling private contracts) in fulfillment of one of its constitutional powers (e.g. regulating commerce), is also inherently constitutional.  That's equivalent to Nixon's famous line "if the President does it, it's legal."  Sorry yo, but that don't go.  

        Good God!, people, look at the obvious and highly tempting slippery slope you're ignoring!  If you don't think the plutocracy is just drooling over the power to force consumption, y'all are a hell of a lot more "trusting" of the plutocrats than you even realize.  

    •  That' a policy argument that I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kareylou

      with but is not a legal argument. The Court does not decide whether Congress chose the best way to achieve an end. While I agree this is probably the worst way to address the problem of universal coverage, once Congress decided on the insurance model, a mandate is not only necessary, it is essential.

      •  no, and no. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dehrha02

        Your arguement reduces to:  Once Congress decides X, then Y is essential.  

        As in: Once Congress declares war, a Sedition Act is essential.    

        You've just made the mistake of swallowing a Congressional mouthful of the old Nixonian "if the President does it, it's legal" arguement.

        Sorry yo, that don't go.  

        •  BZZT (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gary Norton

          There are lots of arguably useful regulatory measures that Congress cannot enact because they infringe on individual liberties protected by, e.g., the 5th Amendment. There is no such liberty at stake here.

          Ok, so I read the polls.

          by andgarden on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 02:13:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  now you're sounding like an insurance shill. (0+ / 0-)

            "There is no such liberty at stake here"....?  O RLY?

            The right to not be forced to enter into private contracts?

            You have it backward.  Rights are not limited to those enumerated.  Powers of government are limited to those enumerated.  Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the power to compel individuals to enter into private contracts.  Nowhere.

            You're doing somersaults and cartwheels and backflips to justify the individual mandate.  Why?  What's in it for you?

            •  I don't recognize the right you assert (0+ / 0-)

              And since the New Deal, neither do the courts.

              I should give you a 0 for your unfounded accusation. You've been around here long enough to know that you don't get to accuse people of being shills.

              Ok, so I read the polls.

              by andgarden on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:55:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site