I think you underestimate how bought and owned today's SCOTUS is.

I hope you are right though.

nisl, that was my first thought also. It is a sad commentary that we cannot have more faith in our justice system.

I think you underestimate how bought and owned today's SCOTUS is.

Not a chance! ;o)

Just one more reason why it is imperative we keep a Democrat in the White House...

The current SCOTUS is broken but with time it can be repaired...

Wonder if we will ever see a justice impeached?

If you think it's likely that justice will be served here, then it also seems likely that you've been into Anna Molly's Joy Juice again, Feisty.

LoL

nisl

I think you underestimate how bought and owned today's SCOTUS is.

I hope you are right though.

nisl

Either way it's a win win.

Democratic strategist John Lapp, a veteran of political campaigns, said even if the administration loses the case, Obama will likely be able to resurrect the narrative of "Republicans undermining critical healthcare for the middle class."

The messaging on health care could only serve to energize Obama's liberal supporters, experts say.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/risk-reward-in-obama-health-care-law-appeal-to-supreme-court/

==================================================================

Win Win; yes

Also, Clarence Thomas and Scalia should rercuse themselvs as well as be impeached for their link to the Koch brothers filthy money..

spider you hate the truth huh

all we need is some more fake christian supreme judges in office in the future and we can say everything we think about is wrong will be wrong under the law

YellowCake from NIGER, please! No one faces imprisonment for not buying the mandated insurance from a Private company provider. You just don't want the health care disparity problem solved, or the profit margin reduced. You favor money over people. And by the way YellowCake Uranium isn't even a weapon, it's virtually harmless to humans.

JoAnna:

It's bad legislation from a bad congress and the administration.

Oh, yes. I agree. Bad, bad, bad.

But, JoAnna, dear -- the exact provision being challenged -- i.e., the mandate -- is a creature born of insurance companies. If you don't believe me, read the Florida decision, where it's all laid out.

http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM153_vin.pdf

This explains why the mandate was originally a conservative creation, having been invented by the Heritage Foundation, way back in the late 1980s.

In fact, between 1993 and 2009, including the Bush years, health care reform, including a mandate, was introduced several times by Congressional REPUBLICANS.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

And that, of course, explains why the Massachusetts bill had a mandate, too.

When in doubt, JoAnna, dear, always remember to look it up.

Beverly,

As well as Kagen, right?

AM: This explains why the mandate was originally a conservative creation, having been invented by the Heritage Foundation.

I'm certain the Heritage Foundation will be shoulder to shoulder supporting the Obama administration during their arguments in front of the SC. And of course when the SC rules against the mandate, the Heritage Foundation will take the political fallout while the Obama administration will skate away scot-free.

At least that's how it will be reported on MSNBC - the "When in doubt, don't look it up, just make it up" network.

Actually, AM, according to the news reports, the mandate is NOT the only thing before the Court.

The cases it accepted, and the directive on what arguments they will hear in the five and a half hours allotted, are, yes, the mandate, but also severability, and the legality of the federal government forcing expansion of Medicaid on the states.

I'm not a lawyer, so I consulted a couple who are- their take is pretty interesting- it seems there are a couple of ways this law could fail.

First, of course, is if the mandate was ruled unConstitutional. The law would fall of its own weight were that to happen. However, if the Court finds that what the government stated at the outset was true- that a severability clause was left out not due to oversight, but deliberately- the Court could find the mandate constitutional, but the Medicaid expansion unConstitutional- and, goodbye, HCR.

There seems no question that the Medicaid expansion violates federal law on the subject, I'm told.

The mandate issue is less clear. One court of Appeals found it unConstitutional; another said it was not "ripe"- that is, there was no standing to challenge it because no one had yet been harmed by it. The ruling was, essentially, "come back in 2015". The two Courts of Appeal who upheld it did so on hypothetical grounds- thus, could reverse themselves given an actual "victim".
(this is not my analysis- it is the analysis of a friend who is a Constitutional law professor- a real one, not a fellow who is supposed to be working on a book).

I'm also told that the amount of time allotted for arguments is pretty unprecedented- about double what is usually given.

Should be pretty interesting. . .

JoAnna:

At least that's how it will be reported on MSNBC - the "When in doubt, don't look it up, just make it up" network.

LoL No, no, no ... much more like ... when confronted with the facts, divert.

Personally, I can't wait. What it will be is fun, for political junkies, anyway.

Que sera, sera.

no joe:

The cases it accepted, and the directive on what arguments they will hear in the five and a half hours allotted, are, yes, the mandate, but also severability, and the legality of the federal government forcing expansion of Medicaid on the states.

Sure, but the mandate was the first big issue.

The Medicaid expansion issue will be hot here in Wisconsin, where the legislature is currently considering a bill that will throw 65,000 people off our Medicaid program, called Badger Care.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/capitol-report-state-s-medicaid-waiver-could-cause-to-lose/article_10257584-0c14-11e1-932a-001cc4c03286.html

This includes several thousands of children, whose slothfulness and irresponsibility in not keeping themselves insured is well-documented.

You gotta admire Governor Walker's guts to do this with a looming recall. It's not likely to be very popular with the 99 percent minority.

But then again, for folks on your side, there's always voter suppression to fall back on, isn't there?

@AM

I don't follow your reasoning? A bad idea by a right-wing think tank, implemented by a left-wing government is now a good idea? Irregardless of whether it's a good or bad idea is it constitutional? What is the limiting factor if this is found to be constitutional? Can the government now mandate for us to buy anything? If not why not?

As to insurance companies asking for this. So what? If you are now asking insurance companies to pay for the treatment of individuals who did not carry insurance it seems fair. However, rather than mandating insurance companies to pay uninsured individuals would it not be simpler for the government to TAX everybody to pay for basic, chronic and emergency healthcare. If you coverage outside of this you then go to an insurer?

What if time.

What if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional and with it gone a major amount of funding is gone. Or due to the mandate decision all of HCR falls apart. Or lets say it is ruled constitutional but the GOP manages to repeal it over a veto or with a GOP POTUS support.

What then? Similar to a question asked at the debate last week. Don't worry you all have more than 30 seconds to formulate and write a response.

What is the magic bullet? Health savings accounts? One time vouchers? The ability to buy policies across state lines to increase competition? Allow people to buy policies outside of their employeers as the candidates proposed. By the way, who would want to do that and forego health benefits through their company, benefits at a prorated cost?

Me and my family have been blessed to not have major health issues. An insured family member did have an emergency apendectomy that cost close to $35K. Even paying 10% on some items and 20% on other items ran up a big bill. What would happen if a sustained, life threatening illness befalls someone. I can only imagine.

So the GOP thinks that some HSA that workers stash $100 a month is going to cover something big. Or they think a one time government voucher would be able to pay a large unexpected bill like that.

What if the mandate it is declared unconstitutional and the AJA is overruled. What does the GOP introduce in lieu of the HCR law?

Alan, NJ

I don't follow your reasoning?

Of course, you don't follow my reasoning. You have never enrolled in Anna Molly's School, as far as I know.

A bad idea by a right-wing think tank, implemented by a left-wing government is now a good idea?

Please pay attention, Alan. My point was only to counter JoAnna's point, which was this was bad DEMOCRAT legislation, as if it was some sort of socialist idea.

In point of fact, however, Republicans invented it as a way to counter others -- like Ted Kennedy, and ultimately Hillary Clinton -- in their efforts to reform health care. The mandate was intended to i imitate "reform," while at the same time preserving the private-sector insurance system for the benefit of their cronies.

Irregardless of whether it's a good or bad idea is it constitutional?

I happen to think the mandate is a bad idea on a practical level, irrespective of whether it is Constitutional or not.

What is the limiting factor if this is found to be constitutional? Can the government now mandate for us to buy anything? If not why not?

I think it has to do with "privilege," but I'm not altogether convinced, as I noted below.

As to insurance companies asking for this. So what?

Here's what. The only purpose the mandate serves is to solidify their hold on the health care market, so they can continue to rake in enormous profits and prices can continue to go up and up and up. They need it so that the other provisions in the plan work. In fact, they insisted on it. They don't want the plan without the mandate. That's why the final, Senate, bill contained no severability provision. If the Supremes get rid of the mandate, but rule the provision is severable, I can only imagine the screaming that will follow.

However, rather than mandating insurance companies to pay uninsured individuals would it not be simpler for the government to TAX everybody to pay for basic, chronic and emergency healthcare.

Yes. In fact, I just said this somewhere else on this thread.

And that's why the true answer, all along, was single-payor.

And that's why the true answer, all along, was single-payor.

Just for the record I also think that single-payer is the way to go. However, as I state below, do not think this will be a Cadillac system along the lines of Medicare for All. I forsee that this will a bare bones system covering the basics, emergencies and chronic conditions. (I've lived in the UK so I know what the system is like). Employers will eventually offer additional coverage as part of their benefits and two tier system, because doctors like money, will emerge.

BTW Did you ever wonder why the British have such bad teeth? It's because dental is not included in the NHS, it's a private industry and the Brits did not want to pay out of their own pocket.

AM: Of course, you don't follow my reasoning. You have never enrolled in Anna Molly's School, as far as I know.

Because there is no reasoning. AM, you brought up the Heritage Foundation as being the originator of ObamaCare. I commented on that, now you say it's a "diversion".

A "think-tank" can come up with any idea they want AM. It doesn't matter to anyone what they write in their "white-papers". What does matter is the implementation of such idea. And that's on the Democrats in the case of ObamaCare. There is no counter to that fact.

"Dan Pfeiffer in a Tweet. "We know the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree."

Pure BS. The White House "knows" nothing, and are kidding themselves.

After all is said and done, should the Supreme Court uphold the mandate, at least 50 million Americans who do not have $6500 for health insurance will be put out of their homes onto the street by the IRS, after due process of course.

JoAnna.

Because there is no reasoning. AM, you brought up the Heritage Foundation as being the originator of ObamaCare. I commented on that, now you say it's a "diversion".

A "think-tank" can come up with any idea they want AM. It doesn't matter to anyone what they write in their "white-papers". What does matter is the implementation of such idea. And that's on the Democrats in the case of ObamaCare. There is no counter to that fact.

Yes. It defies reason that the very organization who came up with the individual mandate is now leading the crusade against it.

And the blind GOP sheep, who supported the mandate in the 90's, are now in lock step against it.

50 million Americans who do not have $6500 for health insurance will be put out of their homes onto the street by the IRS, after due process of course.

And where is the MSM reporting on this major flip-flop of the President?

Didn't candidate Obama attack Hillary Clinton for saying she would garnish wages to pay for health care?

Didn't candidate Obama claim that health insurance premiums would be so reasonable that there would be no need to force individuals to buy policies because it would be common sense?

Why is the MSM not pounding the President on his flip-flops?

(No need to answer...being sarcastic here)

There is a reason, folks, why most constitutional scholars agree the mandate is constitutional.

It is the same reason conservatives, in spite of all of their confident ignorance, cannot come up with a constitutional argument based on precedent.

It is also the same reason two sitting conservative justices - Scalia and Roberts - would have to contridict two of their previous opinions to rule against it.

Scott.

Pure BS. The White House "knows" nothing, and are kidding themselves.

The truth is, you know little, and are kidding yourself.

There are many reasons why the White House is confident on this issue. The main one being, the precedent supports the mandate.

Step by step, kids:

The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.

Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)

And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.

The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).

So let's go slowly . . . . .

Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?

Let's see.

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...

What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.

What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.

What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system.

Filling in the blanks.........

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:

'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'

Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system (the legitimate end)?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

The opinions Scalia and Roberts would contridict if they ruled against the mandate:

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

JoAnna:

A "think-tank" can come up with any idea they want AM. It doesn't matter to anyone what they write in their "white-papers". What does matter is the implementation of such idea. And that's on the Democrats in the case of ObamaCare. There is no counter to that fact.

LoL Of course, there is. We call it Massachusetts.

And then there are also the numerous efforts BY REPUBLICANS to push health care reform, including a mandate, through Congress.

And finally, we have the fact that the insurance companies are the ones who insisted on the mandate. The biggest mistake the President made was to invite them to the table. I first said that on May 15, 2009, by the way, which is the day he brought the insurance companies to the table and threw out the single-payor advocates.

Read pp. 65-70 of the Florida decision cited above to see that both Congress and the President did not believe that the insurance reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act would work without the mandate. Now where do you suppose they got such an idea? Except, maybe, from the insurance companies, themselves.

In short, the mandate was NOT a Democrat idea. It was a "compromise" idea, as part of what the administration itself called health "insurance" reform, and not health "care" reform.

Foolish, as it turned out, and for which the President is now being blamed by the very back-stabbing hypocrites who pushed this idea in the first place.

Including you, possibly.

And THAT'S a fact.

Uh Fiesty - the lower court's decision was that the POS legislation is unconstitutional.

The Supremes will be reviewing the 26 state decision.

Repulicants:

It is also the same reason two sitting conservative justices - Scalia and Roberts - would have to contridict two of their previous opinions to rule against it.

Mark my words. They will call it "distinguishing" their previous opinions.

Foolish, it turned out, and for which the President is now being blamed by the very back-stabbing hypocrites who pushed this idea in the first place.

Wouldn't have happened if he hadn't flip-flopped. He only has himself to blame after all he does think that all the decisions that he and his Administration have made have been correct.

can'ts: Yes. It defies reason that the very organization who came up with the individual mandate is now leading the crusade against it.

'cants you must love rolling in you're own rhetoric.

Six separate appeals have been filed with the high court. Three come from the Atlanta court, where the administration, the states and the National Federation of Independent Business appealed different aspects of the court ruling. From Richmond, Liberty University and Virginia appealed decisions turning back their challenges to the law. The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., appealed a ruling by the Cincinnati-based court upholding the law.

Ultimately, the court chose the Atlanta court's ruling as the primary case to review.

Source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hear-health-care-case-term-150759881.html

See any Heritage Foundation in there 'cants?

What else do you want to make up today?

AM: And then there are also the numerous efforts BY REPUBLICANS to push health care reform, including a mandate, through Congress.

Any succeed? Please give us a bill number, your word isn't worth much around here.

AM: And finally, we have the fact that the insurance companies are the ones who insisted on the mandate. The biggest mistake the President made was to invite them to the table.

My, my you are so into pointing fingers today. Is Obama not responsible and accountable for anything? Seems not with AM.

But at least you see the crap storm soon to be coming Obama's way, Barry should stop investing taxpayer dollars into these energy boondoggles of his, and instead buy a few umbrellas.

Spanker.

Uh Fiesty - the lower court's decision was that the POS legislation is unconstitutional.

The Supremes will be reviewing the 26 state decision.

Uh....if you look at the score, the rulings for it being constitutional are more....

Besides, there is a reason not one of you delusional parrots can present a constitutional argument showing how it is not constitutional.

It mostly boiles down to you not really understanding the issues you ignorantly blather on about.

@Repu.....

So, in your view, the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to mandate a purchase by an individual as long as the company which sells the product transacts interstate business?

I can't wait for a Republican Congress and President, which will happen again sometime, to mandate that every citizen over the age of 18 to buy a gun. (..and I am for gun laws once the 2nd amendment is repealed).

I only hope for this to see the convoluted logic as to why this will not be constitutional.

JoAnna.

'cants you must love rolling in you're own rhetoric.

See any Heritage Foundation in there 'cants?

What else do you want to make up today?

Make up? LOL!!! You mean what else will you deny today to preserve your spoon fed delusion.

You lack of ability to logically think things through, and present logical arguments is very amusing.

You deflect from the fact that the Heritage Foundation invented the mandate, before they, and all of their blind followers were against it, by using an article on the mandate challenges that does not mention the Heritage Foundation.

I realize to someone desperate to preserve the right wing delusion, this seems like a good argument.

However, it is not.

Just because the Heritage Foundation is not listed in your article, does not mean they are not one of the leading forces behind the anit-health care movement.

http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Health-Care

LOL!!!! (I am sure this will not dent the delusion, but I like mocking you anyway.)

Alan J.

So, in your view, the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to mandate a purchase by an individual as long as the company which sells the product transacts interstate business?

No, Alan. The Commerce Clause only allows congress to regulate the industry.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is what gives congress the authority for the mandate. It also limits congress from arbitrarily mandating purchases.

Please read, and try to understand, the previous posts.

I can't wait for a Republican Congress and President, which will happen again sometime, to mandate that every citizen over the age of 18 to buy a gun. (..and I am for gun laws once the 2nd amendment is repealed).

Will not happen. You do not understand the precedent that gives congress the power for the mandate.

The mandate is constitutional because it is a means to a legitimate end. There is no legitamate end in forcing everyone to buy a gun.

I only hope for this to see the convoluted logic as to why this will not be constitutional.

Try less cable news and talk radio. More research. More thinking the issues through....on your own.

(Read the previous posts. I layed out the logic and precedent clearly.)

Anna.

Mark my words. They will call it "distinguishing" their previous opinions.

I think you are being cynical, but we will see.

(In fact, the rulings may fall differently then the presumed ideology would suggest.)

'cants: You deflect from the fact that the Heritage Foundation invented the mandate

Show us the Democrat in Congress running around the House/Senate floor during the ObamaCae debate waving the Heritage Foundations mandate around and claiming it's a GOP idea. You can probably find it in the C-SPAN archives, if it existed.

'cants: Just because the Heritage Foundation is not listed in your article, does not mean they are not one of the leading forces behind the anit-health care movement.

Fine. Prove it.

JoAnna.

Show us the Democrat in Congress running around the House/Senate floor during the ObamaCae debate waving the Heritage Foundations mandate around and claiming it's a GOP idea. You can probably find it in the C-SPAN archives, if it existed.

Huh?

Are you really so ignorant that you are suggesting the Heritage Foundation did not present the individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton plan?

Is your congnative ability so lacking that you would suggest a Democrat not waiving the Heritage Foundating mandate around is proof it was not their idea?

Wow. LOL!!!! You are fun to mock.

JoAnna.

Logic. Take a class.

Republicants, the US congress does not regulate the health insurance industry. That is done by the individual states. Therefore, your point at the begining of 1.29 is based on a false premise.

Furthermore, a mandate is not about regulating the insurance industry. It is about regulating individual choices. Whereas the 3-judge panel of the DC court of appeals found that congress does have the right to regulate what is in the national interest, other courts have found they do not.

'cants: Huh?

Most intelligent comment from you today 'cants. You're now second to last, just (barely) ahead of Feisty.

'cant's: Are you really so ignorant that you are suggesting the Heritage Foundation did not present the individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton plan?

You and Molly has this bug up you a** that somehow Obama and the Democrats are not responsible for the illegal monstrosity of ObamaCare they've come up, and that somehow it isn't their responsibility.

'cant's Is your congnative ability so lacking that you would suggest a Democrat not waiving the Heritage Foundating mandate around is proof it was not their idea?

Where's that proof that the HF is behind the SC case against ObamaCare 'cants'? You kind of glossed over that one. You don't have an answer, we know that. Show us the Democrats and Obama based the ObamaCare legislation on the Heritage Foundations white-paper, show us the Democrats references to it. You kind of glossed over that one too. You don't have an answer, we know that.

Keep backing up though, it's funny to watch you when you get cornered.

'cants: Logic. Take a class.

Answers to your delusions. Come up with some.

JoAnna (quoting):

The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., appealed a ruling by the Cincinnati-based court upholding the law.

The REAL Thomas More would roll over in his grave if he knew this.

Any succeed? Please give us a bill number ....

I never said they did. But the article I quoted, lists several such bills.

your word isn't worth much around here.

Do you ever notice -- no, I don't suppose you do -- how the more you're backed into a corner, the more vicious you become?

By the way, the original Heritage Foundation study describing the potential mandate was issued on October 2, 1989, and was called "Assuring Affordable Care for All Americans."

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

"Assuring Affordable Care" ... sound familiar?

I can't help it if Republicans, including the Heritage Foundation itself, are now hypocritically backing away from their own idea JoAnna.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/12/ensuring-access-to-affordable-health-insurance-a-memo-to-president-elect-obama

Politics is, after all, politics.

My whole point is that you should not keep blaming it completely on the Democrats. Your ranting on this issue is about as intellectually dishonest as you can possibly be.

Come to think of it, why would I be surprised?

Have a lovely afternoon.

So AnaMolly, the Heritage Foundation suggested the mandate long ago, right? And the GOP brought it before Congress several times, right? So does that make the Democrats the party of no because it ewas never made into law?

then it also seems likely that you've been into Anna Molly's Joy Juice again

_______________________________________

If that's the stuff that makes normal people into lefty liberals, I'll pass.

Remember, if you are 18 and not a lefty liberal, you don't have a heart.

If you are 45 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain.

I expect the SC to make the right decision, a 5-4 that Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority when it tries to force the American people to buy a certain commercial product they have decided is "good for them".

If Congress has that authority, what's to stop them from forcing people to buy Joe in Albany's Joy Jiuce that makes people into conservatives??

AM: Would you siupport that??

LOL!!!

JoAnna.

Most intelligent comment from you today 'cants. You're now second to last, just (barely) ahead of Feisty.

Oh. You must of missed the ones where I laid out the arguments, using precedent, as to why the mandate is constitutional.

I did not miss that you have yet to present a constitutional argument as to why the mandate is unconstitutional, however.

Study up, and maybe one day you can defend the crap you post.

You and Molly has this bug up you a** that somehow Obama and the Democrats are not responsible for the illegal monstrosity of ObamaCare they've come up, and that somehow it isn't their responsibility.

I never said the Democrats are not responsible for the health care law.

I only said that the Heritage Foundation, and the blind fools who follow them, are hypocrites.

Where's that proof that the HF is behind the SC case against ObamaCare 'cants'? You kind of glossed over that one. You don't have an answer, we know that.

I also did not say the Heritage Foundation is behind any SC case. You made a connection that was not their....mostly because you are having issues defending the delusional positions you were fed.

Show us the Democrats and Obama based the ObamaCare legislation on the Heritage Foundations white-paper, show us the Democrats references to it. You kind of glossed over that one too. You don't have an answer, we know that.

The individual mandate is an idea the Heritage Foundation came up with. The individual mandate is in the health care law.

Only someone desperate to preserve a delusional point of view needs a white paper to prove the obvious.

LOL!!! Wow. Just wow.

Keep backing up though, it's funny to watch you when you get cornered.

LOL!!! It's rather hard to get cornered following your circular excuses for logic.

Logic. Take a class.

A.M.

I can't help it if Republicans, including the Heritage Foundation itself, are now hypocritically backing away from their own idea JoAnna.

Hey. If there is no white paper.....then it never happened.

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

JoAnna is very vested in the right wing delusion, it would seem.

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is what gives congress the authority for the mandate. It also limits congress from arbitrarily mandating purchases.

The mandate is constitutional because it is a means to a legitimate end. There is no legitamate end in forcing everyone to buy a gun.

You see, now your opinion comes into play. Because you do not see a legitimate end to everybody owning a gun does not mean that congress will agree with you. For example, the Vice President has claimed that the reduction in Police Officers will increase the number of rapes and murders. To counter this, congress may mandate that every citizen carry a fire arm for self-protection to reduce the number of rapes and murders.

BTW I don't listen to talk radio and the only cable news I watch is MSNBC and CNBC.

Joe.

I expect the SC to make the right decision, a 5-4 that Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority when it tries to force the American people to buy a certain commercial product they have decided is "good for them".

I think you hope. You expect only because you want to believe what you post. However, you obviously do not understand the issue, so you are expecting and hoping blindly.

What is the constitutional argument, using precedent, that would make you believe the mandate is unconsitutional?

If Congress has that authority, what's to stop them from forcing people to buy Joe in Albany's Joy Jiuce that makes people into conservatives??

The same thing that gives them the authority for the mandate.

Study up.

You see, now your opinion comes into play. Because you do not see a legitimate end to everybody owning a gun does not mean that congress will agree with you. For example, the Vice President has claimed that the reduction in Police Officers will increase the number of rapes and murders. To counter this, congress may mandate that every citizen carry a fire arm for self-protection to reduce the number of rapes and murders.

Not my opinion.....just how the constitution has been interpreted.

Just like with the broccoli argument given by Judge Vinson where one would have to pile inference apon inference to conclude making everyone eat broccoli would help the health care problem, to reach the conclusion that people being forced to carry guns will reduce the number of rapes and murders also requires one to pile inference apon inference.

Nice attempt to rationalize, however.

JoAnna.

Answers to your delusions. Come up with some.

You are confused.

You are the one with the delusions. And as a result, you are the one who is having such a hard time with logic, and also a hard time defending the delusions you were spoon fed.

-----------------

P.S.

What exactly is your constitutional argument, backed by precedent, showing the mandate is unconstitutional?

(Or are you ready to admit you are once again blathering on about something you know nothing about?)

Danno.

Republicants, the US congress does not regulate the health insurance industry. That is done by the individual states. Therefore, your point at the begining of 1.29 is based on a false premise.

False.

The health care law is about regulating the health care industry, which includes the insurance industry. It does not matter that health care insurance is not sold accross state lines. You are rationalizing in an attempt to preserve a postition you decided to hold without researching the issue.

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Furthermore, a mandate is not about regulating the insurance industry. It is about regulating individual choices. Whereas the 3-judge panel of the DC court of appeals found that congress does have the right to regulate what is in the national interest, other courts have found they do not.

The mandate is a means to the end, which involves regulating the health care industry and the insurance industry. The necessary and proper clause gives congress the power for the mandate as a means to the end provided under the commerce clause.

What is the constitutional argument, using precedent, that would make you believe the mandate is unconsitutional?

___________________________________________

Right back at you:

What is the constitutional argument, using precedent, that would make you believe the mandate is consitutional?

What previous SC decisions do you believe state that the Commerce clause allows Congress to force the American people to buy a commercial product??

Joe.

What is the constitutional argument, using precedent, that would make you believe the mandate is consitutional?

I already posted it...step by step:

The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.

Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)

And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.

The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).

So let's go slowly . . . . .

Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?

Let's see.

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...

What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.

What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.

What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system.

Filling in the blanks.........

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:

'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'

Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system (the legitimate end)?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

Joe.

What previous SC decisions do you believe state that the Commerce clause allows Congress to force the American people to buy a commercial product??

I posted two of those as well.

See:

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

------------------------

Right back at you:

LOL!!! I know you were trying to be clever Joe...but...

1. I already did as you asked...before I asked anyone to present a counter argument (which has yet to happen, btw).
2. You still have not presented a constitutional argument, using precedent, to show the mandate is unconstitutional.

(Right back at ya, jr.)

Take your pick:

1.) Obamacare on the Federal level

2.) Romneycare on the state level

One of them IS your future. Personally I trust the Feds more based on history...

Republicants, are you saying that the end justifies the means (The mandate is a means to the end, which involves regulating the health care industry and the insurance industry - #1.57). Therefore, as long as the end goal is good, how you achieve that goal is irrelevant. Is this what you really mean?

Arguing over the constitutionality of Obamacare is like arguing over how big a piece of gum you need to plug a tiny leak in a dam, when the entire dam is about to fail and everything down stream will be destroyed.

Obamacare will be just like medicare. Years down the road it will be buried in trillions of dollars unfunded liability.

But back to that piece of gum...whoops....I mean legal mumbo jumbo....

Danno.

Republicants, are you saying that the end justifies the means (The mandate is a means to the end, which involves regulating the health care industry and the insurance industry - #1.57). Therefore, as long as the end goal is good, how you achieve that goal is irrelevant. Is this what you really mean?

John Roberts said:

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

And Scalia said:

The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Joe.

What is the constitutional argument, using precedent, that would make you believe the mandate is consitutional?

I already posted it...step by step:

________________________________________

You better hope you are on Barry's short list to replace Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy if they step down/die. Because if you are not, then your opinions are just what the vast majority of opinions are:

Like A$$holes, everybody's got one and everybody thinks other people's stink.

The SC will make the final decision. I'll live with whatever they decide.

Joe.

You better hope you are on Barry's short list to replace Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy if they step down/die. Because if you are not, then your opinions are just what the vast majority of opinions are:

Like A$$holes, everybody's got one and everybody thinks other people's stink.

The SC will make the final decision. I'll live with whatever they decide.

BWHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!!!

Your arse, sir.

(That was me, handing it to you.)

Repulicants,

It is an abuse of power. The precedent requires an overstepping of governmental authority. The SC reads what it wants to read in the Constitution to support/deny political agendas... they look for loopholes like any lawyer would. In this case, the precedent rests firmly on the desire of the political apparatus to maintain the war on drugs at all costs, even if it means that growing a plant in your house or garden amounts to something the federal government can "legitimately" regulate. Anybody with basic reading comprehension skills can read the commerce clause as it is written and know that the intention is for commerce between and among the states to be regulated by the federal government, and not non-economic or intrastate commerce, no matter how it may "affect" interstate commerce. The necessary and proper clause only comes into play when a legitimately constitutional power is being legislated and Congress needs a way to enforce a specific instance of that power. No way in hell, pardon my language, that regulating individual non-economic behavior is a LEGITIMATE application of the commerce clause. What a freaking sick joke.

You're maniacal about precedent, yet you are also very shortsighted in your glee. While it is your opinion that the government won't overstep its bounds with regards to the commerce clause and the precedent already set, the fact is, it already has. Now, it can justify the regulation of just about any private behavior it wants to limit, or on the flip-side to compel, based on the commerce clause coupled with some "perceived to be rational" political agenda. I could make references to past political agendas that were destructive, deadly, genocidal, and otherwise dangerous, but I'm sure those were all irrational goals chased by irrational people. Our government only has our best interests, our rights, and ultimately our freedom in mind, right? Surely our government operates solely on rational grounds, right? Nevermind that the dictionary defitinions of words are thrown out in favor of loophole seeking "justifications" that are just made up by justices and politicians.

Someday you may eat your overly enthusiastic, and arrogant, words.

(That was me, handing it to you.)

Enjoy the smell. You earned it.

So if it is legal for the government to force you to buy a product from a private company under the guise of being better for the country, then when are they going to mandate that everyone buy life insurance? Or how about mandating that everyone buy short term and long term disability? Afterall, it would be better for the country if the dependents of those dying or unable to work did not have to get welfare and other handouts. Maybe mandate that everyone must pay into a 401K plan, and that everyone must pay into an IRA. That would be better for the country because then everyone would not need to get social security. Mandate that everyone must pay to send their children to private school. That would free up all the money that the government spends on education. Mandate that everyone must buy a gun, then they could get rid of the national guard. Mandate that everyone plant veggies in their yards, then we could cut the farm subsidies.

ConstitutionThumper.

Anybody with basic reading comprehension skills can read the commerce clause as it is written and know that the intention is for commerce between and among the states to be regulated by the federal government, and not non-economic or intrastate commerce, no matter how it may "affect" interstate commerce.

Does your name mean that you consistently get thumped on this issue? Must be...

Cause only someone who has less then a basic understanding of the constitution, and how it is interpreted would make the above ignorant statement.

Ya know, you delusional conservatives should not be angry with me. It is not my fault you cannot defend the positions you were obviously spoon fed. Nor is it my fault you never bothered to research the crap you blindly accepted.

And it does you no good to pontificate about how you think the constitution should be interpreted based on your short-sighted and literal reading.

A better strategy would be to attempt understand the constitution, the precedent, and why the constitution is interpred as it is, jr.

Someday you may eat your overly enthusiastic, and arrogant, words.

I don't see how, jr.

I do not know any more then the next guy how the SC will actually rule. But what I do know and what I can factually support is the precedent, and what the precedent suggest will likely happen.

If you or anyone else has an argument based on precedent showing the mandate is unconstitutional, then I would LOVE to hear it. Unfortunately, you have all shown yourselves to be pathetically ignorant on this subject, despite having a whole lot to say about it.

Study up, jr. See if you can remove some of the irony surrounding your name. LOL!!!

Joe.

(That was me, handing it to you.)

Enjoy the smell. You earned it.

LOL!!!!

Albany Joe:

If Congress has that authority, what's to stop them from forcing people to buy Joe in Albany's Joy Jiuce that makes people into conservatives??

AM: Would you siupport that??

LOL!!!

Would I? Heavens no, because I'm against the mandate, as I've said many times, Joe.

LoL ;-)

I never said I don't understand the precedent. In fact I do understand the precedent. I disagree with the SC, that is my opinion. I don't disagree that your parroting of their interpretation is correct. So, you can condescend to me if you like, but it certainly hasn't been earned and it makes you look like an arse.

BTW, no one has spoon fed me anything, you joker. For someone who accuses everyone else of being spoon fed, you are sure one to talk... all you do is spout "look at this precedent, it says THIS, so the Constitution says it, too!" You are spoon fed crap from a bench on high, and you believe every word of it as if it is the divine truth of the universe. All SC decisions are OPINIONS... get that? Precedent CAN be ignored or overturned. Precedent does NOT define the Constitution, as that is a standalone document that cannot be altered by a SC decision. Precedent only affects the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, which is obviously very important, but also subjects any and all powers delegated and rights enumerated to the whims of people who may agree or disagree with the politics of a case brought before them. It means no decisions are final, and no precedent is infallible. The SC is not a machine or a computer, and is as subject to erring or abusing its role as any of the humans that constitute it. Therefore, it is perfectly capable of making BAD decisions, decisions that laugh in the face of the words and spirit of the Constitution, which in the case of the precedent that you cite, has been done.

Whether you agree with me on that is one thing, an opinion. But to prop yourself up as being superior to all else because you can copy and paste a couple of court cases does not mean a) you are smarter than everybody else, or b) that your opinions or the precedent that you copy and paste are philsophically, or literally, or even legally, in line with the Constitution. The SC has the authority to define what is or isn't considered constitutional at a given time. Even the most unconstitutional laws can be upheld by the SC given the right "justification." Conversely, even constitutional laws can be struck down by the SC. That was my point, which you clearly missed... makes me wonder how much of the intention of the Constitution itself you missed when you last read it.

To recap, since you will probably just spout on about how "ignorant" I am, or how I'm "spoon fed" crap which I am not: I do not DISAGREE that the precedent that you are referencing applies in the case of the health care law... I disagree with the precedent ITSELF as being legitimate. It takes a very strong stretch of logic, in fact I would say it is illogical or at best unwise, to say that personal non-economic activity is legitimately encompassed by a commerce clause. It doesn't take a political genius to see that such stretches of logic can easily be, have been, and will continue to be abused to the detriment of whatever group of people the clause is aimed at.

Try actually discussing the subject with people instead of trolling and copying and pasting the same posts over and over. Legal precedent is a dime a dozen and "interpretation" subjects the same thing to analysis by many different minds, with many different agendas, over long periods of time. The Constitution itself is the social contract. When an "interpretation" of it relies on putting words and phrases into its intentions that weren't there in the beginning, and when the meanings of common English words are ignored, there is a problem. The problem isn't the original document or the meanings of the words... the problem is politics.

White House welcome Supreme Court Rule, as long they rule in their favor, otherwise make my word , you will see riots, protesters, vandalism and Judges Scalia, Roberts, Allito siege by Obama supporters. They only accept rules that are in their favor. Democrats think that it will be road to Obama's re-election. But they forgot most Americans want Obamacare repeal.

" - 1 hour on whether the courts can hear challenges to the law now, or whether they must wait until the mandate actually takes effect in 2014."

Let's hope they don't 'kick the can down the road'.

Republicant

neither of those cases will have any bearing on the questions at hand.

Personally, I'd like to see Congress pass Universal health care, with the government setting a minimum "Standard of Care", and then let all insurance companies compete across State borders on the same basis to let competition control pricing. It should be paid for with a combination of payroll taxes and a national sales tax. It would also need medical malpractice claims to be handled by binding arbitration to keep the trial lawyers lobby from enriching themselves at the victims expense.

That is how most of the successful countries do it, and it's estimated that if we adopted their system, it would not only cover everyone, but it would also save us about $1 Trillion per year in health care costs (That's $10 Trillion over 10 years).

Of course, like other countries, if you want 'Cadillac' coverage, it would be available at extra cost - paid for by the individual consumer, not the taxpayers.

Republicants,

It is amazing watching the pubs/ tp types circling the wagons in a frenzy. You really have to love their pretezel logic trying to combat SC decisions with their hurt feelings. I guess they don't understand you have to make the case and not just say "judge I don't like what yo have to say and besides your arse smells"

So pray tell, which article or amendment does the Affordable Care Act supposedly violate?

Go on, I'll wait.

Anna Molly,

Yes the Republicans indeed did introduce the concept. They were saying that the only way a government healthcare system could work is if everyone was mandated to buy in. As they researched how that would work. When they did, they realized that a mandate would be unconstitutional and withdrew it.

One of the reasons it took so long for the Democrats to get the bill done is that they were trying to figure out how to make it constitutional, then make it look constitutional enough to get through the courts.

Yes, the democrats welcome the case being decided before the 2012 election. They will have a number of months to campaign on their acheivement if the court says it's Okay AND enough time to build a campaign campaign to retake congress if it is turned away.

repulicants - your premise....

The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.

Is flawed in your assumption that the "individual mandate" is covered by the commerce clause as you imply because that it is a "statute"

Your logic suggests that because the HCR was passed it is now a "statute" covered by the commerce clause. In a way that is akin to saying that all poodles are dogs, so therefore all dogs are poodles.

BTW since the part of HCR that requires the individual mandate does not become remotely effective until 2014 I suggest that the regs requiring it have not been written yet and therefore not to be veiwed as a statute.

Looks like we will all be anxiously awaiting the SCOTUS decision. Got any guesses as to how long it will be for a decision to be reached after arguments?

I can only hope the SCOTUS upholds it, even though I think it is unconstitutional. I have paid taxes all my life to support those too lazy to work, but now that I am unemployed for 2 1/2 years and too old to be hired, good folks like Feisty can pay for my medical coverage since I can't afford it and she is so willing to pay for it.

Thanks Feisty and you other perpetual welfare recipients who will lose a portion of your free $ that you never earned to take care of me, for a change. Watch the truth get collapsed.

Bob, glad you were taking care of the lazy, 'cause the rest of us were building hiways, exploring space, developing medicines and surgical devices and organ transplants, fighting for freedom around the world, designing what became the WEB, crippling crime and subsidizing the world's finest football teams ever seen.

So, yeah, thanks for your contribution to keeping the lazy scientists, engineers, doctors, soldiers, cops, teachers, firemen and NFL-ers gainfully productive.

Constitution frequently gets Thumped.

I never said I don't understand the precedent.

Nope. You showed it.

To recap, since you will probably just spout on about how "ignorant" I am, or how I'm "spoon fed" crap which I am not: I do not DISAGREE that the precedent that you are referencing applies in the case of the health care law... I disagree with the precedent ITSELF as being legitimate

You are now attempting to look as though you have a clue, after being taken to school.

You are welcome to disagree with the precedent.

However, the fact is, jr, the precedent is legitimate, and that is what will matter when the SC makes it's ruling.

all you do is spout "look at this precedent, it says THIS, so the Constitution says it, too!

It makes sense to point to precedent, kid, when discussing an issue that the Supreme Court is going to address.....and where the precedent will play a very large role in determining the outcome.

Precedent only affects the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, which is obviously very important, but also subjects any and all powers delegated and rights enumerated to the whims of people who may agree or disagree with the politics of a case brought before them

Sure. And the way the constitution has been INTERPRETED suggests the mandate is constitutional....including the recent opinions of two sitting conservative justices.

But to prop yourself up as being superior

I never claimed to be superior, only that the right wing posters have yet to make a constitutional argument, using precedent and logic, as to why they thing the law is unconstitutional. All they, and you, have offered up is how you want the constitution to be interpreted, not how it actually has been interpreted.

Try actually discussing the subject with people instead of trolling and copying and pasting the same posts over and over.

LOL!!! You see, jr, the problem is I do try to discuss the issue, but much like your posts, I only get a bunch of whining about how the posters think the constitution should be read based on their literal reading. They reinforce that with the fact their are others who take the same literal meaning, and ignore the precedent.

And.......if you or any poster could actually come up with a cognitive argument as to why mandate is unconstitutional (besides wishing it wasn't), I wouldn't use the same precedent over and over again.

But the reality is that there isn't really a good argument based on precedent showing how the mandate is unconstitutional, at least not one that has EVER been presented on these threads.

So again, jr, study up. Maybe you can then make one.

Legal precedent is a dime a dozen and "interpretation" subjects the same thing to analysis by many different minds, with many different agendas, over long periods of time

Right. Which is why I posted precedent from two sitting conservative justices who will have a say in the outcome.

When an "interpretation" of it relies on putting words and phrases into its intentions that weren't there in the beginning, and when the meanings of common English words are ignored, there is a problem. The problem isn't the original document or the meanings of the words... the problem is politics.

All law is interpreted, jr.

What you do not seem to grasp is that your interpretation of the meaning of words is different then others. What you think is the meaning or intent, is not the always the same as others. That is why we have the courts.

Listen, I know all of those libertarian blogs, websights, meetings, or whatever has filled your little head with all this idealism, and dreams of utopia. And I know it makes you angry that you didn't really understand the issue as well as you thought you did, and thus got taken to school.

Sorry.

The only thing I am arguing is that the Supreme Court is likely to rule the mandate constitutional based on the precedent, and the previous opinions of past justices. I am having some fun with the ignorance of others, but that is only because the emotional attachment to the spoon fed ideology causes you and others to have such amusing emotional reactions.

I can almost see the steam rising off of your heads in frustration.

LOL!!! Keep it up.

american.

Is flawed in your assumption that the "individual mandate" is covered by the commerce clause as you imply because that it is a "statute"

No. You imply, because you think you have some logical twist, or something.

The mandate is covered by the necessary and proper clause because it is a means to a legitimate end covered under the commerce clause.

The regulation of the health care industry is covered under the commerce clause.

Looks like we will all be anxiously awaiting the SCOTUS decision. Got any guesses as to how long it will be for a decision to be reached after arguments?

Nope.

Doug.

neither of those cases will have any bearing on the questions at hand.

Wishing away the relevance will not likely work.

Try tapping your heals together and chanting, "It's not constitutional." , three times.

Repulicants,

There you go with your constant condescension. To tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly state that I DON'T DISAGREE with you about the applicability of the legal precedent suggests to me that you are a few apples short of a bushel. But go ahead and keep it up, I really don't care.

I've made my opinion on the precedent clear. You've made your opinion on the precedent clear. I think, personally, that you are misguided if you think this is all a good thing. There are no limits to what the government can do with the commerce clause. None. And you seem to be okay with that. If I am dreaming of some Utopia, then certainly you are as well. You'd have to be if you really think that the government won't keep pushing the envelope and creeping into places where it may or may not belong using bogus precedent that can justify absolutely any abuse of power. While you seem overly trusting of these soulless husks of human beings that we call politicians, I am, admittedly, very hesitant to trust them with anything more than setting calibration standards for scientific equipment.

If you think that this health care law is going to actually solve more problems than it will create, I think you are deluding yourself. Of course, the fact that you agree with the court that non-economic activity equals economic activity when it comes to applying the words and spirit of the Constitution to regulatory matters implies pernicious intent on your part, as it is. Mix that intent with delusion, and it becomes a dangerous combo. And you are so happy about it. I'd rather delude myself with visions of individual freedom than authoritarian control. That seems to be the primary philosophical difference between our stances on this issue. So be it. Nothing lasts... but nothing is lost. Individual liberty is dead, long live individual liberty!

Constitutionally Thumped.

There you go with your constant condescension.

Mocking ignorance is amusing to me. Sorry.

To tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly state that I DON'T DISAGREE with you about the applicability of the legal precedent suggests to me that you are a few apples short of a bushel.

You clearly do not really know what your are talking about. That is why you got so angry when I pointed it out.

But go ahead and keep it up, I really don't care.

Yes you do. If you didn't care, you would not have responded.

I've made my opinion on the precedent clear.

You also made clear you do not understand why it is important. You just don't like it because it is used to support an interpretation of the constitution some blog told you was wrong.

There are no limits to what the government can do with the commerce clause. None. And you seem to be okay with that. If I am dreaming of some Utopia, then certainly you are as well. You'd have to be if you really think that the government won't keep pushing the envelope and creeping into places where it may or may not belong using bogus precedent that can justify absolutely any abuse of power. While you seem overly trusting of these soulless husks of human beings that we call politicians, I am, admittedly, very hesitant to trust them with anything more than setting calibration standards for scientific equipment.

Now you are projecting what I am ok with, and you are dreaming of some Utopia.

Listen, there are limits on the commerce clause. As I have explained before, the very thing that limits it's use, is the same thing that gives the congress the power for the mandate.

It is a broad power, but so are many powers granted by the constitution to the congress. The power to tax, for example. Theoretically, congress could tax us at 75%...but they don't. Most of what congress does is limited by politics anyway, and not the constitution.

If you think that this health care law is going to actually solve more problems than it will create, I think you are deluding yourself.

You are projecting again.

Of course, the fact that you agree with the court that non-economic activity equals economic activity when it comes to applying the words and spirit of the Constitution to regulatory matters implies pernicious intent on your part, as it is. Mix that intent with delusion, and it becomes a dangerous combo

LOL!!! No, jr. It implies only I know how to read and understand the precedent, and agree only that the Supreme Court is likely to uphold the mandate because of that precedent.

It is your delusion that the spoon fed, ideological utopia can actually exist, that is pernicious.

d you are so happy about it. I'd rather delude myself with visions of individual freedom than authoritarian control. That seems to be the primary philosophical difference between our stances on this issue. So be it. Nothing lasts... but nothing is lost. Individual liberty is dead, long live individual liberty!

You clearly have deluded yourself. Goal reached. Congrats.

Since Republicants has taken most of you parroting, Faux News watching, Limbaugh-codone

conservatives to school on this issue, I have very little to offer, except this headline:

States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side

A 2005 Supreme Court ruling citing the authority to regulate commerce poses a problem for suits claiming it's unconstitutional for the federal government to force individuals to have insurance.

Reversal of any one of those precedents would have a domino effect on past rulings. Not impossible but highly unlikely.

While the Bill of Rights put clear limits on the government's power to interfere with an individual's freedom of speech or free exercise of religion, the Constitution does not put clear limits on Congress' power.

Article I says, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce."

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Good God! You sure are acting dense, Repulicants. I never once hinted that the precedent isn't IMPORTANT in this case... can you at least attempt to absorb that? That's probably asking too much from someone who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is ignorant or just regurgitating talking points from some website. You could be accused of doing the very same, but you know what, I just don't give a hoot where you get your arguments, from a website or from your very own brain, only that you are making them.

I am not arguing that the SC will reverse the precedent in this case, yet you seem to be putting those words into my mouth. I am saying that it is possible. I never denied my BASIC DISAGREEMENT with the rulings in those precedent cases... which is MY OWN OPINION, which you seem to think means that I think my disagreement is FACT. In fact, I kept saying that I am in disagreement with the precedent, not that it doesn't apply. If you exercised a little bit of intelligence, you might pick up on that. To tell you the truth, I am inclined to think that the courts will UPHOLD the mandate based on the precedence you cite. To me, however, that does not make such a decision the RIGHT decision, as it seems incredibly totalitarian for a central government, or any government, to compel people to purchase a for-profit product from a private company. And, considering the "Utopian" ideas of liberty embraced by the very people who drafted and signed the Constitution, such totalitarian compulsion does seem to go against the spirit of the document they created, regardless of any SC rulings following the ratification of it.

And speaking of SC rulings and the limits of the commerce clause (you seem to believe there are some, and I completely disagree with you based on the very precedent you seem to love so much):

The SC said, in Gibbons vs Ogden that

The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments....

This case dealt directly with the commerce clause, and the SC at the time said it essentially had no codified limits. Interesting words used there: "wisdom," "discretion." Neither, as far as I can tell, can be used to accurately describe very many members of Congress, and since, for the most, part, the American people keep electing the same doofuses into office, the only limits to the commerce clause are whatever doofus politicians can convince their constituents to support. Which, over time, and with enough media support, can be just about anything. As I said, you are delusional if you think our government has the self-control to limit its abuse of the commerce clause.

Ron,

The problem is that the SC has made decisions that define economic and commercial activity to encompass just about everything... including non-economic and non-commercial activity. When the power to regulate commerce becomes the power to regulate non-commerce, there is a fundamental disconnect between the words in the Constitution and the decisions of the courts.

Also, even though the SC has eviscerated the 4th Amendment, its spirit is very clear and defined. Speech and religion are not the only things that are hypothetically protected by the Bill of Rights... and even they are subject to the definitions of courts who have inherent biases and require certain ad hoc definitions of words in order for full protection to apply.

Non-constitutional thumper.

Good God! You sure are acting dense, Repulicants. I never once hinted that the precedent isn't IMPORTANT in this case...

LOL!!! Really?

You're maniacal about precedent, yet you are also very shortsighted in your glee.

---------------------------------

To tell you the truth, I am inclined to think that the courts will UPHOLD the mandate based on the precedence you cite.

Well, why the hell have you been arguing with me then? That is really all my posts were saying.

Anywho, I am glad, through all of that, you learned something....even though....judging from your posts....you are not likely to admit it.

And speaking of SC rulings and the limits of the commerce clause (you seem to believe there are some, and I completely disagree with you based on the very precedent you seem to love so much):

I think there are limits to what can be done under the commerce clause based on what he necessary and proper clause will allow. I do agree that the limits are limited.

Seriously, though. I am not quite sure why you jumped into the middle of my mocking the ignorant posters above considering you say I am right, and the precedent I supplied supported my argument.

Other then to agree with me, all you have offered is cynical criticism of two of our three branches of government.

I think you would rather argue how wish the constitution was interpreted then discuss how and why it is interpreted the way it is, and how that will play out in the case of the mandate.

That is really the problem with idealists. They would rather blather on about the utopia they dream could be, rather then work in the real world to make things better.

I have been arguing with you because the precedent set is BAD PRECEDENT, if one cares about keeping the power of the federal government in check, which is one of the intentions of having a Constitution in the FIRST PLACE. When there are already virtually NO LIMITS on the commerce clause, I REALLY hate to see it further abused.

Hell, the way the commerce clause is interpreted, it is one of the only enumerated powers necessary in the Constitution. If the framers intended that, then the Constitution would be a lot shorter. If it extends to anything commercial or non-commercial, as long as the legislation in question is considered a "rational" end (by "rational" people???), and it supercedes any and all amendments, then sh!t, problem solved... just scrap the rest of the document since most of it isn't needed. Just rule with the commerce clause.

The SC has already essentially determined that to be the case. So much for original intent, huh.

BTW, saying you are maniacal about precedent and shortsighted in your glee does not equate to saying that precedent isn't important to the SC when deciding cases. That is something that you "interpreted" incorrectly from my post. Bad precedent is nothing to be proud of, though, no matter whether it supports your cause or not, and while a decision being considered "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion, you apparently agree with me that the "limits are limited" on the commerce clause. So how is that a GOOD thing?

I would rather be an idealist with realistic expectations than a realist that just accepts things because it seems prudent to do so.

Hello Republicants, Let Class Begin:

If Republican legislators and candidates will need to argue against Obamacare's constitutionality later (at some point), they might as well start now. And here, they should consult the opinions of Justice Thomas. In the Republican response to President Obama's 2011 State of the Union address, Congressman Paul Ryan said: "Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well." As interpreted by Justice Thomas, the commerce clause embodies the same vision of a lean and effective federal government. In Thomas's opinion, the Constitution forces Congress to focus on setting general and uniform rules for interstate trade. By withholding from Congress the power to regulate in-state transactions — such as, say, insurance purchases or the provision of medical care — the Constitution protects Congress from being overwhelmed by the responsibilities of regulating all insurance and health care provided nationwide. It also frees Congress from the kinds of political pressures that led to Obama's shady, back-room side deals employed to round up enough votes for Obamacare — like the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the Sestak 7— or that have led to the selective waivers(Nancy Pelosi's district has been granted the most Obamacare waivers in the country, how hypocritical you libs are, all the way to the top of chain) the federal government has been granting in administering Obamacare since it took effect.

In trying to persuade the country to elect a coalition determined to repeal Obamacare, the law's opponents should ask: How can Obamacare claim to "regulate" interstate "commerce" when the act mandates that citizens purchase a service they do not want to buy? How can Obamacare claim to be "proper" under the necessary and proper clause when it bloats and constipates the national government? And how is it "proper" to divert regulation of health care and insurance from the state and local governments that are more accountable and responsive to the American people?

Now, your line of thinking when it comes to precedent has some support in Supreme Court decisions, but no Supreme Court decision requires it, and other decisions provide reasons for finding the individual mandate unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court extended the effective reach of the commerce clause furthest in a series of cases decided during the New Deal era. Consider, for instance, the 1942 decision in United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Company. In 1937, Congress had passed the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, which aimed to prevent milk from becoming too expensive when it was bought and sold across state lines. The secretary of agriculture tried to enforce a regulation issued under this act's authority against the Wrightwood Dairy Company, an Illinois milk handler. Wrightwood Dairy argued that the act could not be applied to its work because it bought and resold milk produced and traded only within Illinois. In rejecting the company's argument, the Court deferred to Congress's determination that "the marketing of intrastate milk which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to break down price regulation of the latter." And because "Congress plainly has power to regulate the price of milk distributed through the medium of interstate commerce," the Court argued, the necessary and proper clause gave it "every power needed to make that regulation effective."

In the same period, the Court developed the "rational basis" and "substantial effects" tests to clarify when federal laws or administrative polices were necessary and proper in relation to interstate commerce. These tests were articulated most clearly in another 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 directed the secretary of agriculture to set production quotas in the hope of increasing average crop prices. One farmer, Roscoe Filburn, planted and harvested more wheat than he was allowed under a federal quota. He alleged that he was not going to sell any of the excess wheat: He would only feed it to his own chickens and livestock. But the law's architects contended that if enough farmers evaded the federal quotas as Filburn had, when those individual violations were aggregated, the consequences would undermine federal production and price targets — and substantially affect commerce.

The Court agreed. Since Congress had a rational basis for believing these assertions, the Court deferred to Congress. But what if Congress had used that deference to expand its jurisdiction inappropriately? In Wickard, the Court answered: "[E]ffective restraints on [the federal commerce power's] exercise must proceed from political, rather than judicial, processes." In other words: If you don't like it, complain to Congress, not us.

If one assumes that Congress has the power to control the prices and volumes of insurance and health-care goods and services that are traded interstate, Wrightwood Dairy and Wickard provide some justification for Congress to mandate that citizens buy insurance. The mandate can be portrayed as making effective the interstate controls Congress wants to set.

But there is a crucial difference between these cases and the individual mandate — the distinction between individual activity and inactivity. Even though the Wrightwood Dairy Company did not buy milk in an interstate transaction, it did buy milk. Roscoe Filburn may not have sold the wheat he argued was beyond Congress's federal jurisdiction, but he still planted, grew, and used wheat. Obamacare's individual mandate, on the other hand, applies insurance regulation to people who have done nothing — and want to do nothing — to obtain any insurance at all. Furthermore, if the necessary and proper clause lets Congress compel people to enter into commercial contracts against their will, it is hard to see what limits there are to Congress's power at all.

Other, more recent precedents make clear that an interpretation of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses cannot be correct if it suggests that the Constitution does not limit Congress's power in any meaningful way. In the 1995 case United States v. Lopez, Alfonso Lopez, a 12^th-grade student, was arrested at a Texas high school for carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and bullets. Federal authorities charged him with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. Lopez argued that the mere possession of a gun had no believable relation to any scheme of interstate commercial regulation. In response, the government argued that if someone shoots another person in or near a school, the victim's injuries generate costs, and insurance companies must draw the funds to pay for them from nationwide insurance pools. The four liberal justices then on the Rehnquist Court offered a similar argument: Gun possession leads to gun violence, gun violence chills classroom learning, poor in-class learning undermines the training of future workers, and poorly trained workers make bad products and provide poor services. Either way, the government and the Court dissenters argued, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that gun violence substantially affects interstate trade.

On behalf of a five-vote majority (including Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy), Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that these arguments went too far and that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded the scope of Congress's constitutional powers. If the Court accepted the government's argument, Rehnquist warned, it would be "hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is witho

Republicants,

I guess it cut me off after so much text, so here is the rest.

If the Court accepted the government's argument, Rehnquist warned, it would be "hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." If the Court accepted the dissenting justices' argument, he warned, "we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States." Rehnquist conceded that "some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action." Even so, in Lopez, the majority drew a line:

[W]e decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated...and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local....This we are unwilling to do.

With this concern in mind, the Court distinguished its ruling in Lopez from Wickard and other expansive cases on the ground that those earlier cases "involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not."

Lopez strengthens the challenge to the individual mandate. Since the mandate seems a constitutional point of no return, it also threatens the principle that the "Constitution's enumeration of powers...presuppose[s] something not enumerated." To be sure, Lopez does not require a holding against the individual mandate, for it does not announce any explicit distinction between activity and inactivity. But this distinction is quite consistent with what Lopez does say. If a majority of the Roberts Court views the individual mandate as a point of no return, it may easily cite that distinction to protect the broader structural principle that Congress does not have a power to regulate whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare. Indeed, this is the core of the argument on which Judges Hudson and Vinson relied to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. And guess what, the Supreme Court will probably split 4-4 in this case, with Kennedy being the swing vote, and Kennedy votes 90% of the time with conservatives.

So there, I have given you several precedents, since you won't stop your silly, incessant whining about them. You need to stop watching so much MSNBC, you remind of Rachel Maddow when she gets one single thought in her head and simply cannot focus on anything else. It's like a little child covering their ears and screaming the same thing over and over. Either way, you are obviously a pseudo-intellectual socialistic liberal who has a long way to go before understanding our judicial system's history and implementations. Class, DISMISSED.

Republicants,

I guess it cut me off after so much text, so here is the rest.

If the Court accepted the government's argument, Rehnquist warned, it would be "hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." If the Court accepted the dissenting justices' argument, he warned, "we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States." Rehnquist conceded that "some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action." Even so, in Lopez, the majority drew a line:

[W]e decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated...and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local....This we are unwilling to do.

With this concern in mind, the Court distinguished its ruling in Lopez from Wickard and other expansive cases on the ground that those earlier cases "involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not."

Lopez strengthens the challenge to the individual mandate. Since the mandate seems a constitutional point of no return, it also threatens the principle that the "Constitution's enumeration of powers...presuppose[s] something not enumerated." To be sure, Lopez does not require a holding against the individual mandate, for it does not announce any explicit distinction between activity and inactivity. But this distinction is quite consistent with what Lopez does say. If a majority of the Roberts Court views the individual mandate as a point of no return, it may easily cite that distinction to protect the broader structural principle that Congress does not have a power to regulate whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare. Indeed, this is the core of the argument on which Judges Hudson and Vinson relied to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. And guess what, the Supreme Court will probably split 4-4 in this case, with Kennedy being the swing vote, and Kennedy votes 90% of the time with conservatives.

So there, I have given you several precedents, since you won't stop your silly, incessant whining about them. You need to stop watching so much MSNBC, you remind of Rachel Maddow when she gets one single thought in her head and simply cannot focus on anything else. It's like a little child covering their ears and screaming the same thing over and over. Either way, you are obviously a pseudo-intellectual socialistic liberal who has a long way to go before understanding our judicial system's history and implementations. Class, DISMISSED.

matt (the plagerizing parrot).

Hello Republicants, Let Class Begin:

LOL!!! Yep. I had an instructor like you once. Read from the book page by page, and didn't understand a word of what was being said.

Seriously wingnut. At least give credit to the blog you parrot your arguments from.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/obamacare-and-the-limits-of-judicial-conservatism

BWHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

(Not to mention, the blog actually backs up much of what I am saying, suggesting that conservatives should not be so confident that the opinions will fall where they think.)

Class, DISMISSED.

Yea loser. Your fn fired. Next time come back with your own argument.

Wow. Just wow.

Republicants,

Sure, some of the arguments are gleaned from blogs, and other parts of the arguments are from myself. When posting comments on some message board, this is not really an issue is it? It's about the argument itself, I am not turning this in or taking credit for the entire post as if it were all mine. I used several academic and scholarly sources, actually. Alas, I knew you would make this an issue though, since you don't actually debate ANY of the points that were clearly laid out for you. You notice, I destroyed your argument (while using other sources as reference) since all you did for multiple posts was complain and whine about there not being any precedent for Obamacare being unconsitutional. This is typical when arguing with libs; one always gets the "yeah, well prove it" line when libs have been backed into a corner with facts. I guess, since you now see that you were quite wrong all along, you have to go to liberal plan "B", which is to whine and complain that I didnt provide you with a bibliography...

The fact that you FAIL to even bother to debate these points is great, again, showing that you have been thourougly trounced. Again, this will be fun to revisit once those of your ilk start crying when the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional. Sooo, Wow. Just....wow.

matt.

Lopez strengthens the challenge to the individual mandate

I disagree with the agrument from Eric that you parroted. I think Lopez strengthens the case for the individual mandate.

The reasoning in Lopez was that the gun law went to far in it's use of the commerce power because, "we would have to pile inference upon inference" to reach the conclusion, as the minority suggested, "that if someone shoots another person in or near a school, the victim's injuries generate costs, and insurance companies must draw the funds to pay for them from nationwide insurance pools."

The health care mandate is entirely different. There is no need to stack inferences to reach the conclusion that congress has the power to regulate insurance and the medical industry in order to solve a problem that is directly related to those industries.

In Lopez, the commerce clause was a bit of a stretch. In the case of the mandate, it is not.

-------------

So...study up, jr.

Maybe next time you will take the time to study and understand the issue, rather then plagerizing a blog....word for word.

LOL!!!

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

matt.

Sure, some of the arguments are gleaned from blogs

The entire argument is pulled from a blog. One blog. Word for word.

You got caught jr.

LOL!!!

matt.

The fact that you FAIL to even bother to debate these points is great, again, showing that you have been thourougly trounced

Spoken like an ignorant parrot, who did not supply his own argument or demonstrate even a basic understanding of the issue....

LOL!!!!

Typical conservative B.S. argument. So confident in your ignorance.....and so angry when that ignorance fails you.

Study up, jr.

Constitution.

I would rather be an idealist with realistic expectations than a realist that just accepts things because it seems prudent to do so.

Ok. Fair enough.

But I am not so sure your expectations on changing the way the constitution is interpreted are all that realistic, nor do I think I am just accepting things.

I am only, as I stated before, arguing the mandate appears to be constitutional...and the precedent supports that conclusion.

I am also fond of mocking ignorance...and on this issue, the right displays much ignorance. I mean, just look at matty matt over here. Unable to present his own argument, he is reduced to posting an argument from some blog, word for word.

Then....after being called out, accuses me of being unable to defend my arguments against the points he just parroted word for word.

I wonder if he will respond with an intellegent response to my post disagreeing with the author of the blog he parroted? I think it is doubtful.

He is just another example of the astonishing ignorance plaguing the modern conservative movement.

Republicant

You are a tremendous ideolgue. Toeing the party line argument. Witnessing for their hope.

All for naught.

I have copied your response to my post and put it in my notes. When my position is proven correct I will rub it in your face.

Remember I said,"those two cases will have no bearing on the question at hand".

5-3. Kagan will have to recuse herself. If she does not it will be be a most decisive 5-4 because Kennedy will be so appalled at her superficiality to the extent his decision will be that much easier.

A lot of you are ignoring the real issue here.

FORGET ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE ISSUES! FORGET ABOUT THE JUSTICES POLITICS!

Let's say the laws supporters like RepuleDivisivename are right, and they uphold the law.

Under this interpetation of the Commerce clause, what will be the limits to the governments power?????? THERE WILL BE NONE!

Think long and hard about that people. And remember, no matter which party you are against, they will someday wield that same power!

If that doesn't scare the funk out of you, you're an idiot.

Calm down. The all powerful government will still have to pass laws in order to be able to force you to buy whatever the things are that you think that you don't need. If the sitting president vetoes their bill, they will have to over-ride it with 60 votes in the Senate. If you don't want to pay the substitute tax penalty and get yourself in tax trouble because of it, you can challenge the new law's Constitutionality. You'll then have standing to be seen by SCOTUS. Stand up then and be a hero, instead of a whimpering sap.

I love how you call me a whimpering sap for not wanting to grant the government unlimited power, but you don't deny that it will. Of course, you being ok with granting the government unlimited power, well, that doesn't make YOU a sap..... or does it?

By the way, if this was a tax, we wouldn't be having this coversation. Educate yourself a little more before you go name calling.

I just explained to you how their power would not be unlimited. How about you lay off the hyperbole....

You in fact did NOT explain how the governments powers would not be unlimited. Reread your post. You simply stated that it would take more than one branch of the government in order to excercise their new power, which does not exist under the current interpetation of the commerce clause. How about you lay on some logic?

Our government is not monolithic. The seperation of powers allows for the required restraints on "unlimited" legislative powers. They did not write into the law that you would be imprisoned for failing to buy, in this case health insurance, the product which has been deemed good for you and the country as a whole. If they had unlimited power they could apply capital punishment to your failure, which they haven't.

The USPATRIOT Act was a much larger power grab, and threat to our freedoms, than the AHCRA.

As for unlimited power; ever since we have possessed more than 200 thermo-nuclear bombs, the government has had the power to end all life on this planet. I would suspect our government labs have also brewed up a DNA specific plague virus by now. You've got bigger things to worry about than policies which try to bend the cost curve on delivering health care to all Americans, your fellow citizens. Take a breath.

Dougy.

You are a tremendous ideolgue. Toeing the party line argument. Witnessing for their hope.

All for naught.

No. You are just mad because you cannot defend the crap you were fed, and want so very desperately to believe.

I have copied your response to my post and put it in my notes. When my position is proven correct I will rub it in your face.

Ok dork. LOL!!!

Remember I said,"those two cases will have no bearing on the question at hand".

You can say it all day long, kid. However, you will still be wrong.

Happens to many posters who attempt to talk about issues they do not understand, but ignorantly hold views that were fed to them.

5-3. Kagan will have to recuse herself. If she does not it will be be a most decisive 5-4 because Kennedy will be so appalled at her superficiality to the extent his decision will be that much easier.

Neither Kagan or Thomas will recuse themselves. If they were to do so, they would have done it already.

You are very naive.

Ali.

Under this interpetation of the Commerce clause, what will be the limits to the governments power?????? THERE WILL BE NONE!

There already are not many that will limit congresses power under the commerce clause. The power is limited to being rationally related, but the real limits are political.

You obviously just started paying attention to this issue, and did not research it very well.

You are just scaring yourself for no reason.

So Paul, just so I understand you... Are you saying that because they are not using imprisonment or the death penalty to enforce this sweeping new power, it's ok? And because they have nuclear weapons, it's ok?

I am sorry, but that is simply not logical. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will see that your logic is fail on many levels.

And Repule, are you disagreeing with me? I can't tell. I see that you claim that I haven't looked into this much. I am not sure what you base this on, but it is completely irrelevant. You do not adress what I am saying in any meaningful way. Despite your insulting manner, you seem fairly intelligent. Yet you have not voiced an intelligent argument to my statement. At least you didn't say something like "it's ok because they have nukes" or some such nonsense.

Still, you do not deny my point. Because you cannot.

And I am not "scaring yourself for no reason". What is scary to me is how easily people like yourself are willing to give up the protections afforded to them under The United States Constitution. I can only assume that you want the healthcare bill so badly, that your emotions have overidden your ability to think critically.

Put aside your emotions, and think logically. The government does not and should not have the right to force individual U.S. Citizens to purchase a commercial product from a private for profit corporation. Remember, they will not be limited to health insurance under the interpetation of the commerce clause that you are pushing for. And someday, the other guys will be in charge. Are you ok with the republicans having that much control over how you spend your money? I would assume not.

THINK!

"Some such nonsense"? Just because you don't understand what you are being told doesn't make it nonsense. You claimed that the government would have unlimited power if the AHCRA were ruled Constitutional. If so, why can't they kill you for failing to buy health insurance? Because they don't have unlimited power to do so.

You skipped over my reference to the USPATRIOT Act being a much greater threat to our liberty and constitutional freedoms than a SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Why did you ignore that? Because you are willfully ignorant of the truth. If you are willing to IGNORE the Patriot Act's intrusion into your freedoms while b!tching about a SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce clause your whole argument is nonsensical. Are you unaware that none of us would ever be granted standing to even challenge the Constitutionality of the USPATRIOT ACT?

Alil.

Yet you have not voiced an intelligent argument to my statement

I am not really arguing with you. The reason I suggested you likely just started paying attention to this issue is that nothing has changed. The courts have given congress broad powers under the commerce clause, with few limits. Nothing changed with the health care law, accept that perhaps you do not like the mandate.

However, there are limits. For example, one of the limits is what makes Judge Vinson's brocolli argument so asinine, and seriously should make people question his ability as a Federal Judge. Congress has to show a rational relation between the means and the end. One would have to pile inference apon inference to reach the conclusion that making everyone eat brocolli would help the health care situation.

The main limit, however, is political.

What is scary to me is how easily people like yourself are willing to give up the protections afforded to them under The United States Constitution. I can only assume that you want the healthcare bill so badly, that your emotions have overidden your ability to think critically.

Like I said, you are scaring yourself for no reason. And it is effecting YOUR ability to think critically.

Put aside your emotions, and think logically.

I am thinking logically, and YOU need to put aside your emotions, kid. See below:

The government does not and should not have the right to force individual U.S. Citizens to purchase a commercial product from a private for profit corporation. Remember, they will not be limited to health insurance under the interpetation of the commerce clause that you are pushing for. And someday, the other guys will be in charge. Are you ok with the republicans having that much control over how you spend your money? I would assume not.

Your emotional reaction to the mandate has caused you to either willfully ignore, or miss the fact that congress already enjoys reletively few limits under the commerce clause, and the mandate changes nothing.

THINK!

Yes. You need to. But first, study up so you have something substantial to think about.

Paul and Repule you both seem to suffer from the same delusion, that ridiculing and putting down everybody else somehow makes you look smarter, or your arguments more valid. I assure you this is not the case. In reality, it just makes you both look like jerks.

Paul - Yes, your logic is fail. Because the government does not use capitol punishment as enforcement, it does not mean their powers under the interpetation of the commerce clause you seek would be limited. And of course I ignored your reference to the patriot act. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT. Try to stay with the group. For the record I don't care for that nasty bit of business either.

Repule - Let me break down your post the way you so thoughtfully did for me. The first paragraph is 4 sentences

1- "I am not really arguing with you." - This is False

2 - "The reason I suggested you likely just started paying attention to this issue is that nothing has changed" - This is also false. The healthcare act interpets the commerce clause in an entirely new way.

3 - "The courts have given congress broad powers under the commerce clause, with few limits." - This is mostly true, however, the implication that you are trying to make is invalid. See 2 above.

4 - "Nothing changed with the health care law, accept that perhaps you do not like the mandate." This is also false. See 2 above. I believe you meant to use the word "except" there. Having followed sentence 3 with this sentence also makes sentence 3 less valid than it would be if it stood alone. You are trying to imply that allowing the government to compel private citizens to buy a commercial product from a private for profit corporation is somehow not a huge change in the accepted interpetations of the commerce clause. I assure, the change is HUGE. And you know it is.

Next you go on to say that Judge Vinson's broccoli argument is "asinine". In fact, Judge Vinson's arguments are the most logical of any of the lower courts decisions. It does not rely on participation in a government run program established under the war powers act (the wheat exchange decision) and it does not rely on any issue of "ripeness". Nevertheless, we will have to wait to hear from the SC on that one.

You go on to say that " Congress has to show a rational relation between the means and the end." So... Congress has to rationalize it. I am not sure that's legally true, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. Buddy, in case you haven't noticed, Congress can rationalize anything. That is hardly what I would call a limitation on their powers.

And you wrap it up with this doozy - " Your emotional reaction to the mandate has caused you to either willfully ignore, or miss the fact that congress already enjoys reletively few limits under the commerce clause, and the mandate changes nothing."

This is false. The mandate changes the interpetation of the commerce clause in a very fundamental way, as I have already explained. You know this to be true, and yet you continue to assert that it is not.

I get Paul, he's just not very bright, and mean spirited. Shoot, I had to explain to him earlier about the meaning of his own post.

But you Repule?

You're just Lying.

Man, I love some Common Sense! Talk about taking a liberal out to the woodshed for an intellectual spanking.

Wait for it though Alil, I imagine you can expect to be told, in typical liberal fashion, that obviously 'you just don't understand the law', or you 'haven't studied the issues enough,' or 'you just aren't thinking logically,'...then they will mix in some logical fallacies, insults, and other liberal deflective drivel in an attempt to save face...which will undoubtedly fail, as it always does.

Thanks Roanoke...... But in the interest of full disclosure....

Although it pains me to be associated with some of the so called liberals on these boards, I'm a proud card carrying Union Member, I marched with Occupy Boston three times so far and will again tomorrow, and I vehemently beleive that Hilary was robbed of the nomination by her own party when they split the votes of Florida and Michigan to punish them for something the Republicans did when they moved up their primary dates (in both states every single Dem voted against it)......

It's true. I consider myself a liberal.

Just not a stupid one that's so blinded by party loyalty that I can't criticize our failure of a President and his corrupt administration.

.

Alil,

I stand corrected, but completely appreciate your response. In no way am I in agreement with the OWS movement or most tenets of liberalism, but it is nice and refreshing to find a liberal on this message board that doesn't swim in their own arrogance and is willing to put reality and logic ahead of rhetoric, insults, and partisan politics. Kudos to you.

Alil.

1- "I am not really arguing with you." - This is False

I wasn't on that issue. You stated that there would be no limits to federal power under the commerce clause. I largely agreed with you, although I did point out there are some limits, and gave you an example. I also pointed out that politics is really the limiting factor, as it is on many issues.

2 - "The reason I suggested you likely just started paying attention to this issue is that nothing has changed" - This is also false. The healthcare act interpets the commerce clause in an entirely new way.

That is not false. Again. Nothing has changed with the fact that the commerce clause already gives congress broad powers. The healthcare law relies on established precedent, which has did not change when it passed.

This precedent, which is fairly clear, is the same as it was before the health care law.

3 - "The courts have given congress broad powers under the commerce clause, with few limits." - This is mostly true, however, the implication that you are trying to make is invalid. See 2 above.

It is not invalid. The same precedents that give congress broad powers in other cases, also gives congress the power for the mandate. See the constitutional arguments I presented several times in this thread.

You are trying to imply that allowing the government to compel private citizens to buy a commercial product from a private for profit corporation is somehow not a huge change in the accepted interpetations of the commerce clause. I assure, the change is HUGE. And you know it is.

It is not a huge change in the accepted interpretations. The fact that the government is compelling someone to purchase insurance has nothing to do with the precedent supporting the mandate. You, like many others, are hung up on this because you do not understand the precedent. The purchasing part is irrelevant.

Next you go on to say that Judge Vinson's broccoli argument is "asinine". In fact, Judge Vinson's arguments are the most logical of any of the lower courts decisions

LOL!!! Vinson's broccoli argument is asinine, which is why it is largely laughed at by constitutional scholars. It completely ignores the established precedent. This is the reason for the decision against Lopez.

You go on to say that " Congress has to show a rational relation between the means and the end." So... Congress has to rationalize it. I am not sure that's legally true, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. Buddy, in case you haven't noticed, Congress can rationalize anything. That is hardly what I would call a limitation on their powers.

Wow. You really do not understand this stuff, huh?

Congress does not have to rationalise anything. The means being used must be "rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power".

LOL!!! But since you are confused by Robert's opinion, I will provide you with another.

The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Understand now?

This is false. The mandate changes the interpetation of the commerce clause in a very fundamental way, as I have already explained. You know this to be true, and yet you continue to assert that it is not.

LOL!!!

The mandate DOES NOT change the interpretation of the commerce clause in ANY way.

The fact that I can use established precedent to support the constitutionality of the mandate is testament to that.

And you explained NOTHING. You don't even seem to understand the issue.

But you Repule?

You're just Lying.

What? LOL!!!! Look dude. I am truly sorry you attempted to argue an issue you didn't understand. I am sorry you failed in you desperate attempt to validate a position you were either fed, or want very badly to believe.

But the fact that you have not, and can not present an actual constitutional argument and support it using the actual interpretation of the constitution or precedent, makes very clear that you really do not understand this issue.

Study up.

Roanoke.

Man, I love some Common Sense! Talk about taking a liberal out to the woodshed for an intellectual spanking.

Common Sense? LOL!!!

Oh....you mean a simple minded view of this issue.

Which is why Alil is getting a intellectual spanking....

How about you, jr? Do you have a constitutional argument you can support using the actual interpretation of the constitution and precedent?

Wait for it though Alil, I imagine you can expect to be told, in typical liberal fashion, that obviously 'you just don't understand the law', or you 'haven't studied the issues enough,' or 'you just aren't thinking logically,'...then they will mix in some logical fallacies, insults, and other liberal deflective drivel in an attempt to save face...which will undoubtedly fail, as it always does.

I have already shown Alil does not understand the law and the precedent, and as a result, he made it obvious he hasn't studied the issue at all. I don't need to say it, but thanks for pointing it out, jr.

Just not a stupid one that's so blinded by party loyalty that I can't criticize our failure of a President and his corrupt administration.

You are stupid enough to argue an issue you don't understand, however.

So I am fairly sure you couldn't support the failure or corrupt statements either.

Political neophytes are very amusing...so confident in their ignorance. LOL!!!

Step by step, kids:

The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.

Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)

And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.

The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).

So let's go slowly . . . . .

Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?

Let's see.

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...

What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.

What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.

What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system.

Filling in the blanks.........

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:

'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'

Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system (the legitimate end)?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

I am no constitutional expert/scholar like you Republicants, but I have studied this issue for the last year or so. My graduate level Constitutional Law class has been debating this issue for the entire semester, with the class fairly evenly divided down the middle on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. I'll make a quick stab here...

The majority decision the from 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, co-authored by Judge Frank Hull, a Clinton-appointee, reads:

"[T]he individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope. It regulates those who have not entered the health care market at all. It regulates those who have entered the health care market, but have not entered the insurance market (and have no intention of doing so). It is overinclusive in when it regulates: it conflates those who presently consume health care with those who will not consume health care for many years into the future. The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power….

The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure."

So, it would seem that the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond far beyond just economic activity, to economic inactivity. That power in American judicial history is unprecedented. So, in the past, Congress has certainly used its taxing power to fund SS and Medicare, but it has NEVER used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person MUST engage in economic transaction with a private complany. But remember, Obama and his administration have made it clear that this is NOT a tax (which is unfortunate for Dems, because it seems that this would be an open and shut case FOR Obamacare if it was). Plus, for instance, regulating the auto industry is one thing but making everyone buy a Ford or Chevy is a gross overreach of Federal power, right? This is where so many citizens have an issue with the individual mandate, because if Congress is granted this power, one could seemingly see, in the future, Congress requiring such things as the purchase of cars they deem necessarry or any other purchases they deem necessary. Heck, even during World War II, our Democratic-led federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds, and this was a time when we were fighting for our very existence, and war bonds were the vehicle through which our military thrived... If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive and a citizen of the United States seems an abuse of power...

In Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton explained that the Constitution was established to "correct the insufficiency of the existing federal government." So, in Federalist No. 22, he detailed one area in which the "defects of the existing federal system concur in rendering that system altogether unfit sfor the administration of the affairs of the Union." Basically, this had to do with other states' regulations interfering with commerce across states lines. Hamilton felt that our nation would get myred in deep dysfunction without “a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States” to ensure that “states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages.” So, this is why the power “to regulate commerce among the several states” was given to Congress by the new Constitution in Article I, Section 8.

So, using the unambiguous language that was used in drafting the Commerce Clause, as well as Hamilton’s explanation of its "limitation to actual commerce passing between states", one can see the Founding Fathers potentially turning over in their graves at how our federal government is now exploiting that clause to prosecute citizens for commercial inactivity in refraining from interstate trade.

I see that you dislike Judge Vinson's argument against the individual mandate, but to many, it makes sense. So, how about Judge Hudson then, who, again, rationally in the eyes of many, “constrained the boundaries of the Commerce Clause jurisdiction to activities that are TRULY economic in nature and that had a demonstrable effect on interstate commerce.” He closes the opinion with:“Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction, or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity… Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

Finally, in closing, ( and I know you don't like Vinson) but here is an interesting twist to 2008-OBAMA's OWN WORDS, in which Vinson uses to rule against Obamacare:"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'". WOW, so, you see, even our wonderful president, WHO WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR AT HARVARD was against the individual mandate and felt it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL just 3 years ago. So, was he irrational and illogical THEN, or is he irrational and illogical NOW...either way, what a massive flip-flop from campaigner Obama to president Obama...

Finally, lets remember that precedent is in NO WAY a requirement in regards to supreme court rulings. Sure, it is highly regarded and most often used, but this is not just any case, it is a case that goes to the very core of our freedoms given us by the Constitution. So precedent will not necessarily rule the day here, especially when such precedents, as you well know, can be argued for or against by both sides of this argument.

And lastly, an interesting sidenote: The article here states that the White House "welcomes" having the supreme court rule on this case. This is highly ironic to note, since the Obama administration spent the last year trying to make sure this case would not get before the supreme court until AFTER the 2012 election. Hmmmm....sounds like the White House isn't so confident after all, but hey, they have to save face, so of course they now "welcome" the ruling. Either way, it should be interesting to watch this play out, especially since Kennedy usually votes with the conservative justices (minus gay rights and abortion issues).

P.S. Notice how I attempted to make a rational, logical argument here, WITHOUT name-calling, insulting you, or calling into question the limits of your intelligence. You seem like a smart guy, but your arrogance, insulting manner, and childish style of arguing detracts from what would have been a fairly sound argument...

I am no constitutional expert/scholar

That sir, is obvious. I will get into why in just a sec. LOL!!!

I'll make a quick stab here...

You didn't take a stab at anything.

The majority decision the from 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, co-authored by Judge Frank Hull....

So, it would seem that the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond far beyond just economic activity, to economic inactivity.

It would not seem. Just because Hudson says so, and ignores the constitutional precedent in doing so, does not make it so.

The reason being....the question of inactivity is irrelevant. They are regulating the health care industry, which is an industry they have the power to regulate. And the only requirement long held by the courts that congress needs is whether or not the means is rationally related to the end.

Not to mention, the fact is, everyone will use the health care system eventually, with very, very few exceptions, making the "mere existence" argument rather moot.

But again, activity vs. inactivity is not really a good argument when it comes to the constitutionality.

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

In Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton explained

1. Much has happened between Hamilton and now. Using Hamilton will not get you very far in court.
2. The next time you parrot (almost word for word) an article, please site the article. It sounded much better when it came from the original author:

http://www.cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/56/845-the-commerce-clause-an-invaluable-constitutional-restraint-against-obamacare-and-other-tyrannies-from-the-founding-fathers

(That makes two of you one one thread...LOL!!!)

I see that you dislike Judge Vinson's argument against the individual mandate, but to many, it makes sense.

It does not make sense as a constitutional argument. It does make sense as a political argument, however.

Finally, in closing, ( and I know you don't like Vinson) but here is an interesting twist to 2008-OBAMA's OWN WORDS, i

Not a constitutional argument. More of a deflection from the fact you still have not really presented one.....dispite claiming to have discussed the issue thorughly in your class.

WOW, so, you see, even our wonderful president, WHO WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR AT HARVARD was against the individual mandate and felt it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL just 3 years ago. So, was he irrational and illogical THEN, or is he irrational and illogical NOW...either way, what a massive flip-flop from campaigner Obama to president Obama...

I am not aware that Obama ever argued the individual mandate was unconstitutional, just that he was opposed to it while running in a competitive primary.

That is also a deflection, and not a constitutional argument.

Finally, lets remember that precedent is in NO WAY a requirement in regards to supreme court rulings. Sure, it is highly regarded and most often used, but this is not just any case, it is a case that goes to the very core of our freedoms given us by the Constitution. So precedent will not necessarily rule the day here, especially when such precedents, as you well know, can be argued for or against by both sides of this argument.

Precedent is what lower court judges are supposed to use, but failed to in the case of Hudson and Vinson. In addition, precedent carries more weight then you want to give it...mostly because you didn't provide any to support your case.

And lastly, an interesting sidenote: The article here states that the White House "welcomes" having the supreme court rule on this case. This is highly ironic to note, since the Obama administration spent the last year trying to make sure this case would not get before the supreme court until AFTER the 2012 election. Hmmmm....sounds like the White House isn't so confident after al

Actually....

It sounds more like you weren't really paying attention. The White House could have easily delayed the case going to the Supreme Courts. They could have requested the case go to the full appeals court. The did not.

It has nothing to do with confidence, neophyte, it has much more to do with on the off chance the Supreme Court does rule the mandate is unconstitutional, or requires congress readdress the issue in some way, they will have influence even if Obama is not re-elected.

Savy?

You read into too much, and think too little.

P.S. Notice how I attempted to make a rational, logical argument here, WITHOUT name-calling, insulting you, or calling into question the limits of your intelligence. You seem like a smart guy, but your arrogance, insulting manner, and childish style of arguing detracts from what would have been a fairly sound argument...

Thank you, and despite my ribbings, I will grant that despite your slight bit of plagerism, you have put the most effort into attempting to make a decent argument...even if it is only to support something you want to believe.

Let me explain. I am not here for you or anyone else. I am here to entertain myself. Mocking the ignorance of wingnuts is fun. They make it rather easy.

---------------

So finally....

As I said before, congrats on your attempt. However, in your argument, you cited the opinions of two justices who ruled on the mandate, and the writings of Hamilton. You did not really explain why the mandate is unconstitutional using established precedent or SC opinions from past cases. The two opinions are still in flux, so to speak, as the top court has yet to decide, and there more rulings for the constitutionality then against...as well as more appeals for.

------------------------------------

The argument against the mandate is rather weak. This is the reason it is so difficult to find or make a good argument against it that holds up.

That does not mean the result is guaranteed, but it is far more likely to be upheld then struck down.

Cheers.....(and thicker skin...;-)

You are trying to imply that allowing the government to compel private citizens to buy a commercial product from a private for profit corporation is somehow not a huge change in the accepted interpetations of the commerce clause. I assure, the change is HUGE. And you know it is.

THERE IS CURRENTLY NO INTERPETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO PURCHASE A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT FROM A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CORPORATION.

I don't know why you persist in saying that there is. You yourself know for a fact that there is not.

“If the constitution is to be only what the administration of the day may wish it to be, and is to assume any and all shapes which may suit the opinions and theories of public men, as they successively direct the public councils, it will be difficult, indeed, to ascertain what its real value is. It cannot possess either certainty, or uniformity, or safety. It will be one thing today, and another thing tomorrow, and again another thing on each succeeding day. The past will furnish no guide, and the future no security.

“It will be the reverse of a law, and entail upon the country the curse of that miserable servitude so much abhorred and denounced, where all is vague and uncertain in the fundamentals of government.”

-Justice Joseph Story

Alil.

THERE IS CURRENTLY NO INTERPETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO PURCHASE A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT FROM A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CORPORATION.

I don't know why you persist in saying that there is. You yourself know for a fact that there is not.

You are rather stuck on this point, but have issues with justifying why constitutionally.

Once again. The fact that the mandate has not been done before on the federal level is IRRELEVANT.

Please try and understand the precedent this time. Stop. Take a deep breath. Step away from your emotions, and make an attempt to read and understand.

------------------------

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

--------------

I mean, talk about obtuse....

Roanoke.

-Justice Joseph Story

I will take that posting as a concession you cannot present a constitutional argument using established precedent and the actual interpretation of the constitution as to why the mandate is unconstitutional.

For since the precedent does seem to support the mandate, the past is furnishing a guide. The administration is using the precedent as a guide, the constitution will only be "one thing today, and another thing tomorrow, and again another thing on each succeeding day" if they do not follow that precedent.

---------------

LOL!!! But I get it. Your naive, and weakly supported positions - that you obviously had BEFORE you tried to gain an understanding of the issue, have left you rather empty handed. Unable to find any precedent - other then the rulings from the justices who's rulings are in question - you withdraw to an ideological utopia, and post what is probably one of the favourite quotes floating around your libertarian? (just a guess) blogo world.

Had you studied the issue BEFORE you formed an opinion about it, you would have been able to defend it.

No offence.

Roanoke.

Or maybe you were now agreeing with me, realising the error in your thinking.

If that was the case. Sorry for being a dlck. LOL!!!

Republicants,

Your entire argument is based on precedent. You accuse Alil of being stuck on a particular issue, but it is you yourself who harp on only one issue. Your arguments consist of posting former supreme court cases that only somewhat prove your argument about precedent. Like I said in my previous post, precedent will not necessarily rule the day here because it IS NOT REQUIRED by the SC. As multiple federal judges have shown you, both judges from the left and the right, they are not required to follow former rulings, especially when these rulings are ambiguous enough to be able to be argued from both sides of this issue, such as Lopez or Wickard. I have seen excellent arguments from both sides in which which both of these cases are used to argue for or against Obamacare. Yet, you keep posting the same few precedent's as proof of the constitutionality of Obamacare (even though they can be argued both ways), and then telling other posters that their arguments 'don't count' because they have not shown prior decisions that prove Obamacare is unconstitutional; well that is just a logical fallacy and you know it. This is the FIRST TIME that our federal government has attempted to force an individual citizen to purchase a product or be fined...so YOU KNOW that there will not be prior decisions that favor this line of thinking...because this issue has never been before the SC!!! Yet, this is basically the entire crux of your argument, which is why it fails. And I think it is rather lame that you attempt to paint the judges (both Dems and Repubs) that have ruled against Obamacare so far as 'ignoring' precedent, because, again, as I have said several times, THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED to follow precedent's in this case because no prior case has dealt specifically with requiring private citizens to purchase a product. What excuse do you give that judges from both sides of the political spectrum have ruled against Obamacare? You have claimed that this argument is a political one, not constitutional(because in your liberal-only mind the constitutionality of Obamcare is so cut-and dried, yet men who have studied law for decades, federal judges, have ruled against it), so are the Democrat judges who have ruled against Obamacare anti-Obama now, in their politics, which is the only reason you could provide for such reasoning...even though they give constitutional arguments in the decisions as to why the individual mandate is NOT constitutional?

From Robert Moffit, Ph.D:

"It Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Personal Liberty and Strikes at the Heart of American Federalism. In upholding Virginia’s challenge to the
constitutionality of the mandate on December 13, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson wrote:

A thorough survey of pertinent Constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its
effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of Congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police power. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage. It’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.[10]

"Regardless of the wisdom of the policy, if a state wants to experiment with a health insurance mandate, as most do with auto insurance, it has the constitutional right to do so. But Congress, in this instance, is invading the traditional authority of the states in regulating health insurance within their own borders. As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has written, “There is a legitimate concern for many that this mandate constitutes the greatest (and perhaps the most lethal) challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history. With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old-man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers.”[11]"

And there are many constitutional arguments, using several amendments, that can be used against Obamacare. Tenth Amendment, the preservation of state power over realms of governance and regulation that are not expressly ceded to the Federal government in the Constitution. Throughout our history, state government has always had sovereign authority over the insurance business within said states borders. Now, in 1944, the New Deal helped expand some of these powers by the Federal government as far as insurance companies coming under the Commerce Clause, but Congress DID eventually override the Court's ruling by enacting legislation that affirmed power to the states when it comes to insurance. See United States Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491.

Fifth Amendment, the government's power to enact 'public uses' as considered under the 5th, and then force an unwilling person to engage in conduct in that world which the government feels advances these public uses. This is akin to the government forcing property owners to sell their land to a private company that the city chooses, so it could make this private property a devoted to more 'public use.' Eminent Domain is explicitly recognized by the constitution, and ensures that private property belongs to citizens and they cannot be forced to part with it except under very limited circumstances, and the owners must be paid a fair price. So, anyone forced to buy health insurance is being forced to part with private companies, such as private insurance that is given from a private company.

Precedent to forcing citizens to engage in conduct mandated by the federal government? Look to the Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of federal rent control. This was an issue taken up during during WWI and WWII, in challenges against rent control statutes. In two precedents upholding the statutes, the court ruled implicitly and explicitly that "there comes a point when the police power ceases and leaves only that of eminent domain." So, if we apply this similar line of thought to the individual mandate, anyone who is forced to purchase health care will become entrapped in this federal regulation spider-web that accompanies the laws implementation, but very much UNLIKE government imposed rent control, they are without any viable way to escape participation. Under the doctrine of eminent domain, citizens are not given the option to pay a fine (the "choice" liberals point to in Obamacare). Under Obamacare, the forced purchaser is given no monetary value for his forced participation.

The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment. It contains a provision that disallows the government to impose 'cruel' fines, implemented to keep the government from using forms of taxes to levy against persons who the government disagreed with. Since one could make a sound argument that the supposed fine with Obamacare will be cruel or excessive to those who are poor and CHOOSE not to buy it, there would seem to be an 8th amendment issue here as well. One would not think that such a broad, all-encompassing fine would pass the muster test when it comes to the SC (but, who knows).

From the Maine Heritage Policy Center, non-profit, NON-PARTISAN research center:

"A. Medical Autonomy Under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments. Our rights to medical autonomy – that is, control over our bodies, doctor-patient relationships or medical treatment – are arguably fundamental rights protected by the “liberty guarantees” of the Fifth and Ninth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment protects life, liberty and property and requiresdue process of law before we can be deprived of any ofthem. The Ninth Amendment provides that we retain all our natural rights, eventhough they might not be listed in the Constitution.The Individual Mandate arguably burdens those liberty rights in our intimate and personalrelations.7“TheCongress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts andprovide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shallbe uniform throughout the United States;” 8 Florida ex rel. McCollum v. U.S. Dept of Health andHuman Services, 716 F.Supp.2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010) 9 In footnote 11 of his opinion in the Virginia case, JudgeHudson blows Judge Vinson a judicial kiss, stating thatVinson “perceptively notesthat the [penalty] provision fails to mention any revenue generating purposes”. 10 The Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he powers notdelegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to theStates, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 11 Among these is Coons, et al. v. Geithner, et al. 10-cv-1714in the District of Arizona.

B. Privacy Guarantees Under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth
Amendments. This claimasserts that the compulsory transfer of our medical records to insurers under the IndividualMandate violates our Fifth Amendment property rights and our Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment provides security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects”against “unreasonable” search and seizures. The violation occurs when the Individual Mandateforces us to disclose without genuine consent our most private information.

C. State Legislative Autonomy. The Supreme Court has stated
that the First Amendment requires legislators be given wide latitude to
express their views on policy.12 Because ObamaCare imposes eligibility and maintenancerequirements on states as conditions of receiving further Medicaid funding, and by imposing a variety of other mandates on the states, state legislators’ hands, mouths and ability to vote freely are unconstitutionally burdened by the inexorable pressure exerted by ObamaCare.

D. Unconstitutional “Entrenchment”. The legislative power of
Congress does not include the ability to prevent future Congresses from altering
or amending legislation enacted by earlier Congresses. ObamaCare creates a 15-member “Independent Payment Advisory Board” (IPAB) to provide “detailed and specific proposals related to the Medicare program”13 beginning in 2014, which must include recommendations that will result in the reduction of the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending. The statuteprovides for no rulemaking procedure for the IPAB, expressly prohibits either administrative or judicial review of IPABproposals and restricts the manner in which Congress candebate, amend or vote on IPABproposals. Moreover, once an IPAB proposal is submitted to Congress, itcan only go to specificHouse and Senate committees and should the Congress not acton the proposal, it can becomelaw without approval by Congress or by being signed into lawby the president. Finally, in orderto discontinue IPAB, a Congress must pass a joint resolutionaccording to a rigid formula that may not be introduced until 2017 and no later than February1, 2017, with enactment to take place by August 15, 2017. Even if enacted, it will not become effective until proposal year 2020.Taken together, these anti-repeal measures amount to an unconstitutional entrenchment andremove legislative power from Congress and give it tounelected and unaccountable bureaucrats."

So, it seems that this case is not the slam-dunk you feel that it is. But, alas, I am sure you will simply attempt to debunk or call ill-formed, the federal judges that I have provided in this thread, Ph.D professors and professors of Law from Georgetown, and non-partisan research centers and such, I guess because you are just smarter than them all. LOL!!! Now that's funny!

And finally, there is no need to apologize for being a 'dick.' That has been well-established throughout the course of this thread. Heck, you can't even agree with our treat with respect other liberals in this thread. You being such a dick, while not really intellectually debunking anything without the use of semantics and red herrings, is not YOUR fault, it's just how you were raised. It's your parent's fault...

"The fact that the mandate has not been done before on the federal level is IRRELEVANT."

You Repule are lying. And you are a condescending jerk. You know that your statement is completely false, and still you persist. You really do know that I am right, and you are wrong, but you still somehow can't face it. It must be terrible to be you. You have my pity.

Is there not a federal mandate that everyone who attends public schools has to be vaccinated agianst communicable diseases? Shouldn't everyone who uses the public highways, airports, and train stations have health insurance?

Roanone.

Your entire argument is based on precedent. You accuse Alil of being stuck on a particular issue, but it is you yourself who harp on only one issue. Your arguments consist of posting former supreme court cases that only somewhat prove your argument about precedent. Like I said in my previous post, precedent will not necessarily rule the day here because it IS NOT REQUIRED by the SC

LOL!!!

The most amsuing part about your rant is that while you are correct that the SC is not held in chains by precedent, it is a substantial factor.

Also amusing:

From Robert Moffit, Ph.D:

Wow. You actually sited someone. However, in your lame attempt to make it appear you know something about this issue, you were forced to parrot, and not site, other right wing hacks.

Link to Moffits article from the Heritage Foundation, a well known right wing think tank....who ironically CAME UP WITH THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!!!

http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/03/16/Heritage-Foundation-on-health-care.pdf

You then parroted the rest of your post from an American Thinker article by Roger D. Luchs. (You did try to hide this fact by paraphrasing...must have put a bit of work into it.):

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamacare_the_28th_amendment.html

**Some advise, jr. Instead of taking so much time paraphrasing someone elses arguments, use that time to learn about the issue...so you understand it, and can make your own arguments.

From the Maine Heritage Policy Center, non-profit, NON-PARTISAN research center:

LOL!!! You have a warped view of "NON-PARTISAN", jr.

----------------------------

Listen dude, if these were your arguments, that you had spent some time examining and studying, we could have a discussion. But they are not.

They are the result of a desperate google search for anything that told you what you wanted to believe. I am not interested in debating Moffit, Luchs, or any other right wing hack you decided to parrot, kid.

So study up, and when you have formed your own opinions, come back to the discussion.

Alil.

You Repule are lying. And you are a condescending jerk. You know that your statement is completely false, and still you persist. You really do know that I am right, and you are wrong, but you still somehow can't face it. It must be terrible to be you. You have my pity.

Your post is pitiful. Reduced to calling me a liar, and my posts false....and yet, pathetically unable to show how.

I am not a liar, kid. You are willfully deluded, and just want to believe what you want to believe.

Your delusion is strong, jr.

Roanoke.

You being such a dick, while not really intellectually debunking anything without the use of semantics and red herrings

LOL!!!

No, jr. The problem is that you do not understand the issue, were fed an opinion on it that you now very desperately want to believe, and have had to go on desperate searches to prove what you have yet to prove.......and still, you are unable to bring yourself to admit the right wing hacks how you seem to worship.....may have led you astray.

So now, unable to debunk a single think I posted, or present a constitutional argument you could defend using YOUR understanding of the constitution, you are reduced to posting as your own the arguments of right wing think tanks.

Truely sad....your ego must be irreperably damaged. Sorry.

LOL!!!

Repile,

Again, you simply use the typical liberal arguing tactic of, well since this guy disagrees with me, I have to tell him that he "just doesn't understand the issue, he hasn't studied enough, he paraphrased too much." LOL!!! This is just a liberal diversion tactic, since you are obviously NOT smarter than federal judges, PhD Professors of Law at Georgetown, and non-partisan think tanks that I provided. (nice try on alluding to the fact that I paraphrased simply to bolster my argument, as if this somehow disqualifies what was said or makes the argument irrelevant, another pathetic deflection tactic often utilized by ideologues like yourself). Either way, it's interesting to note that you didn't refute one single thing that I discussed. NOT ONE. LOL!!! (but, I'm sure your excuses for not doing so will prevail inside your own, warped noodle, because I paraphrased). LOL!!

You go all typical-lib again by simply claiming that the Maine Heritage Policy Center is not non-partisan...I guess, because all you really do is make a sarcastic claim about them not being partisan, but, as usual, certainly no evidence to support your liberal, brainwashed, and biased claim. This is normal whenever libs are confronted with lines of thought that contradict what they believe; "oh, they must be non-partisan' since they don't feed me the same partisan drivel I get from MSNBC." And I absolutely LOVE how you fell into this one: You see, it is true that Heritage formed the first ideas in regards to a mandate, and sure, now they are against it, many years later. How ironic then, since I have seen you defend Obama on multiple points, that Obama has a massive history of flip-flopping in just the past few years!!! LOL!!! Hmmm, the DOMA comes to mind (he promised as a campaigner to uphold it, but is now against it), he was against sending troops into combat without congressional approval (and then sent air force troops to Libya WITHOUT voting on it in Congress), he vowed to run the most 'transparent administration in history', only to have your own uber-lib and Jew-hater Helen Thomas excoriate him and his administration for 'never having this level of CONTROL and lack of transparency in the WH', and she was in the WH Press Corps for DECADES and is ONE OF YOUR OWN (LOL!!!!), and then finally...your boy WAS AGAINST the mandate as campaigner-Obama!!!! LOL!!! He was nearly jumping up and down on the stage with Hillary vilifying her and making sarcastic comments to her about the mandate during their debate!!!! LOL!!!! So, you really stepped into a large pool of your own hypocritical fecal matter on that one, but that's okay, because you have been swimming in that sea of arrogance and pseudo-intellectualism this entire thread.

And finally, I have to point this out because it's fun, but are you, perchance, a limey gap-toothed Brit moonlighting as an American? You see, your syntax, prose, and spelling give you away. I couldn't help but notice that, throughout this entire thread, you misspell Americanized English words, such as 'favourite' and 'offence' and 'truely', which are all British versions of the spellings of these words. And maybe I am wrong, and you are just a terrible speller for such an 'intellectual,' but if I am right, then this would explain a lot in regards to your childish and immature nature when posting. Brits always seem to feel the need to 'overcompensate' for things, maybe because we beat that ass in 1776, beat that ass again in 1812, or had to bail that ass out in WWII, or maybe because Brits just have smaller...hmmm...anatomies than Americans? LOL!!!! Either way, your pathetic attitude is probably just a general inferiority complex all the way around (good luck with that, I'm sure it makes for an interesting social life!). LOL!!!! So, I guess the fault that you grew up into such a pathetic tool is not the fault of your parents entirely, you just have an ingrained sense of low self-esteem and self-worth that is derived from your culture. Or heck, maybe your parents just didn't love you enough as a child, thus it is all their fault...

So, to use that British closing you have already used once: CHEERS! (take Midol for any cramps) LOL!!

And since you are done debating (just insulting now), it's off to the next thread! (meaning I am done commenting/reading posts on this thread etc, so don't bother with another attempt at offensive diatribe, because I won't be reading it) But this has been fun, let's do it again soon on another thread! Until then...Wes gesund!

Roanoke.

Again, you simply use the typical liberal arguing tactic of, well since this guy disagrees with me, I have to tell him that he "just doesn't understand the issue, he hasn't studied enough, he paraphrased too much."

LOL!!! You don't understand the issue at all moron. You made that obvious when you lifted your enitre argument - almost word for word - from right wing think tanks.

You go all typical-lib again by simply claiming that the Maine Heritage Policy Center is not non-partisan...I guess, because all you really do is make a sarcastic claim about them not being partisan, but, as usual, certainly no evidence to support your liberal, brainwashed,

No half-wit. I went to their website.

About Us

The Maine Heritage Policy Center is a research and educational organization whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise; limited, constitutional government; individual freedom; and traditional American values–all for the purpose of providing public policy solutions that benefit the people of Maine.

http://www.mainepolicy.org/about-us/

LOL!!! (You make this too easy.)

And finally, I have to point this out because it's fun, but are you, perchance, a limey gap-toothed Brit moonlighting as an American?

Typical conservative no nothing. When his spoon fed ignorance is put on display, he accuses the person who handed him his arse as being un-American. LOL!!!!

LOL!!!

--------------

Listen. I am truely sorry you were overconfident based on the arguments that sounded so sound when they were fed to you, but you never actually researched enough to be able to defend them. You have proven yourself to be nothing more then a conservative parrot, who is not really interested in the issues.

And since you are done debating (just insulting now), it's off to the next thread! (meaning I am done commenting/reading posts on this thread etc, so don't bother with another attempt at offensive diatribe, because I won't be reading it) But this has been fun, let's do it again soon on another thread! Until then...Wes gesund!

No jr. I was mocking you.

I was mocking you because you were not debating. You were claiming to debate, but in reality all you were doing was parroting the arguments fed to you. In fact, you didn't even know the arguments until this thread. You just knew what your ideology told you to think.

You then went on a desperate google search to locate an argument that fit want you were previously told to believe, but never bothered to actually research before.

As a result, you were forced to paraphrase - barely - articles from right wing think tanks, and copy and paste from others (and attempt to claim they were non-partisan).

It has been fun, and I look forward to taking you to school on the other issues you were spoon fed.

And your concession is noted, jr.

Booby, better take another look at the GOP field.

Thankfully, only one GOP candidate will be selected, and whoever it is, will beat our current massive failure of a President.

Bob,

What kind of meds are you on? Are they prescribed by a physician or are you self medicating?

Too much Kool-aid for you.

Justice Kennedy, we await your decision.

bob.

You seem confident the mandate is unconstitutional.

Please present the constitutional argument using precedent that makes you so confident.

Or is this like the many other issues you blather on about, knowing only what cable news fed you?

Thankfully, only one GOP candidate will be selected, and whoever it is, will beat our current massive failure of a President.

And if not, bob will have some deflection or excuse to preserve the delusion.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... WERE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE LATITUDE CONTENDED FOR, IT WOULD SUBVERT THE VERY FOUNDATIONS, AND TRANSMUTE THE VERY NATURE OF THE LIMITED GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA." -- James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Unconstitutional...

THE PEOPLE need to realize that it is not finished when the Supreme Court rules on it. Anyone remember a little thing called PROHIBITION? THE PEOPLE told the government via willful, belligerent disobedience that they would not tolerate it. Do the same with this BS {Barry Sotoro} and it will be brought down as well. I thought the people of this country were against BULLYING... I, for one, will NOT be BULLIED into following this obnoxious program. If they had the balls to do it for booze, where the hell are ours?! We the People actually have the final say...

Q: Do you trust the federal government?
A: Ask the Native Americans!

Personally, I'd like to see Congress pass Universal health care, with the government setting a minimum "Standard of Care", and then let all insurance companies compete across State borders on the same basis to let competition control pricing. It should be paid for with a combination of payroll taxes and a national sales tax. It would also need medical malpractice claims to be handled by binding arbitration to keep the trial lawyers lobby from enriching themselves at the victims expense.

That is how most of the successful countries do it, and it's estimated that if we adopted a similar system, it would not only cover everyone, but it would also save us about $1 Trillion per year in health care costs (That's $10 Trillion over 10 years, which is 2/3 of our National Debt).

Of course, like other countries, if you want 'Cadillac' coverage, it would be available at extra cost - paid for by the individual consumer, not the taxpayers.

Repulicants "bob.You seem confident the mandate is unconstitutional.Please present the constitutional argument using precedent that makes you so confident."

And your 'precedent' that it's constitutional is??????????????????????

Bob (or any other gov't takeover proponent),

How do you figure that adding millions of clients to the private health insurance industry is a government takeover? I'm waitin' to hear your slippin' and slidin' on this (but I'm sure not holding my breath).

Roy Wilson.

And your 'precedent' that it's constitutional is??????????????????????

I've posted it twice on this thread. Scroll up.

Republicant some of our conservative brothers and sisters appear to be severly challenged by reading, and by logical inference, perhaps you can post a video and put the Faux News logo on it, OR photoshop Limbaugh's voice and draw stickmen....LOL

REPUBLICANTS,

Please scroll up and witness the destruction I laid upon your arguments... Your silence is rather telling... No mas? I love it... victory. OWNED.

matt.

Please scroll up and witness the destruction I laid upon your arguments... .

Please also scroll up and witness me pointing out they were not your arguments, but the arguments of

ERIC R. CLAEYS

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/obamacare-and-the-limits-of-judicial-conservatism

Your silence is rather telling... No mas? I love it... victory. OWNED

LOL!!! Si. Mas. Your inability to actually present an argument using your own words is very telling. It suggests that you, like most conservatives, simply do not understand this issue.

Yet another example of how perpetual ignorance on the right, and their desperate search to find proof to support the ignorant positions they were spoon fed.

Owned indeed, loser. LOL!!!

Republicants,

Again, I like how you can't actually debate any of the points. You merely deflect because you know that you were owned, so you blather on with typical liberal tripe about not citing the source...on message board. You cried and moaned about there being no precedent, and I laid out several for you. So, again, its interesting to note that you don't debate ANY of them. You just whine that I did not put quotations or cite a source I used as reference. Either way, my words or the words of someone else, utterly debunked your pseudo-intellectualism. In the future, try not to be such a douche, and actually argue the points, instead of complaining about a lack of citation on a message board, it makes you look weak( I imagine you ARE a small little man who has hidden behind his computer his whole life). But, I guess I would be a douchebag like you if I had such small genitalia...

matt.

Again, I like how you can't actually debate any of the points

I have been debating these points. You only have to read the thread, jr.

You are merely deflecting from the fact that you don't really understand the issue, and thus had to paste someone elses argument, word for word.

The words you parroted did NOT debunk anything, jr. And if you had actually taken the time to understand the issue, you would also understand that.

But alas, you, like many other ignorant conservatives, were way to lazy to do the research.

it makes you look weak( I imagine you ARE a small little man who has hidden behind his computer his whole life). But, I guess I would be a douchebag like you if I had such small genitalia...

LOL!!!!

Your concession is noted, jr.

(P.S. Insults are your very best argument, and even those need some work.)

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb...

Schools out. LOL!!!

Ahhh, again with the liberal "I just dont understand the issue" argument. Hmm, I guess I didnt do the research at all (or I just didnt research liberal talking points on this issue). I like how you still can't get over the lack of quotations...on a message board. And no, you didn't debate the post at all, really, you just took one aspect (the Lopez case) and put a liberal spin on it.

Like most liberals, you view the constitution as a breathing document, meaning this is the justification you libs spew forth for trampling all over it. Ever taken a constitutional law class, big guy? (I mean little guy, sorry). Obviously not, otherwise your interpretation of Obamacare as being legal simply because liberal courts trounced the constitution in the 19th century, setting BS 'precedents', in no way means that the consitution allows for the government to FORCE citizens to purchase a product, or be FINED for NOT purchasing a product. Ever studied European socialism? Obviously not, because that is what you are crying for...and...ummm....if you look at Europe, it's not working out so well, huh? Basically, go back to your little hole (or tent that you are pooping in in some park), and keep reading your Marx and Alinsky while doing drugs, raping women, beating on cops, and playing the drums...Liberalism is great, huh? Loser, dismissed.

matt.

Ahhh, again with the liberal "I just dont understand the issue" argument. Hmm, I guess I didnt do the research at all (or I just didnt research liberal talking points on this issue). I like how you still can't get over the lack of quotations...on a message board. And no, you didn't debate the post at all, really, you just took one aspect (the Lopez case) and put a liberal spin on it.

LOL!!! You didn't do any research. You post, and the fact that is consisted entirely of a parroted opinion of someone elses blog, shows that.

Liberal spin? LOL!!! Oh. Ok then. It should be rather easy to refute it. Looking.....looking....nope. Don't see anything. Oh wait, there is this...

Ever taken a constitutional law class, big guy? (I mean little guy, sorry). Obviously not, otherwise your interpretation of Obamacare as being legal simply because liberal courts trounced the constitution in the 19th century, setting BS 'precedents', in no way means that the consitution allows for the government to FORCE citizens to purchase a product, or be FINED for NOT purchasing a product. Ever studied European socialism?

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAAAA!!!!

Listen, jr. The question is not wether or not congress can require someone to purchase something or not. That is not a constitutional question. That is a political question.

---------------

As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

matt (ignorance on display).

Ever studied European socialism? Obviously not, because that is what you are crying for...and...ummm....if you look at Europe, it's not working out so well, huh? Basically, go back to your little hole (or tent that you are pooping in in some park), and keep reading your Marx and Alinsky while doing drugs, raping women, beating on cops, and playing the drums...Liberalism is great, huh?

And now, as is typical when the cable news based arguments spoon fed to the conservative fall apart (mostly because they do not understand the issues they attempt to argue), it is time for the projections and deflections.......

LOL!!!

Marxists, socialists, communists...OH MY!!!!!!

Loser, dismissed.

You are NOT dismissed. I am not finished mocking you.

I thought I said "loser, dismissed." Why are you still commenting? Seriously, dude, you have parks just waiting to be pooped in. You have cops to beat, women to sexually assault, drugs to do, music to play, bitching and whining to take part in, businesses to hurt, and then...when it's all over...you have your parents' basement to go back to... So why are you spending so much time providing the rest of us with your falsehoods, half-truths, intellectual fallacies, and counter-intuitive arguments? And how are you able to spend so much time on this discussion board? (oh wait, I forgot, you surely don't have a job, you live off the rest of us who DO work, thereby providing you the time you need to be an internet troll and piss and moan about the citizens of America owe you). Later, loser.

matty.

I thought I said "loser, dismissed." Why are you still commenting

And I said you are not dismissed, jr. I am not finished mocking your ignornace.

"Seriously dude, don't you have....<insert deflective projections we have all heard before here>...."

LOL!!!!!

What's the matter matty matt? Can't you discuss the issue beyond the blog you parroted?

LOL!!!!

Later, loser.

Awwww....come on. I was planning on mocking and humiliating you all day. LOL!!!

Study up, jr. Seriously.

Loser, like I said, I can't spend all day on a discussion board like you...I have to go earn a living so socialistic parasites like you can live off of my taxes...As for mocking and humiliating, I have been laughing at having fun with your tripe all day. I LOVE how you don't deny that you have no job or that you live in your parents' basement (which is why you can afford to spend days on a discussion board). BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!! Republicants=no job, no girl, no home, AND tiny genitals. WOW. LOL!!!!!! Sucks to be you (well I guess it doesn't, I imagine living off the hard work of others while bitching about how much more the government (taxpayers) owe you must be a nice life). Buh bye wittle guy... And go take a Con law class, seriously, because you truly lack comprehension and understanding when it comes to that paper thingy you libs trample all over...

matt.

I can't spend all day on a discussion board like you

Yet you are.

I LOVE how you don't deny that you have no job or that you live in your parents' basement

I love how you need so little to reinforce your ignorant projections.

Buh bye wittle guy... And go take a Con law class, seriously, because you truly lack comprehension and understanding when it comes to that paper thingy you libs trample all over...

Odd how I took you to school then, huh? LOL!!!

Well, not so odd considering the reality is, and the thread shows, you tried to argue an issue you knew nothing about, and you did so by parroting, word for word, a blog you came accross in your desperate google search for anything that supported the position you were spoon fed.

Care to explain why you didn't couldn't discuss the issue beyond the blog you parroted? LOL!!! My guess is no.....cause you simply cannot, being the ignorant drone you are.

Enjoy your bliss, oh ignorant one..... I know I am. LOL!!!

1. P.S. Study up, jr.

Umm.....basements. Repulicants=tiny, tiny, tiny, little genitals. You took no one to school, it's obvious you have never attended one. You should give it a try, it might help you from having to live off taxpayers the rest of your pathetic parasitic life.

LOL!!!!

The more you project what you need to believe onto me in order to not feel so bad about the fact you stepped in the feces of your own ignorance, the more you make it obvious how pathetically deep that ignorance is, jr.

But keep it up. I do enjoy mocking fools like you. Thanks again.

I agree. I really like showing how delusional and pathetic libs such as yourself truly are. It has been fun mocking your fallacious arguments. Again, go to school. (and not an online school, where it seems you have been educated). Actually learn something, it will aid you in the future to not look so weak and frail. I will come calling when the SC rules Obamacare unconstitutional, just to laugh at you(as I have been doing all day) and point out how truly uninformed and pathetic you really are. Back to the grind (I know basement, porn, and internet trolling are on your agenda, so I'll let you go). Your welcome for providing your pathetic life with sustenance (through my tax dollars). Carry on with your failed life.

matt.

LOL!!! How is opposite land this time of year?

Anything else in your pathetic life you would like need to project onto me to make you feel better about your ignorance (and how stupid I made you look)?

LOL!!!!

Basement Troll,

I'm good, just trying to stay out of fairytale utopian pseudo-reality basement world. My life is great, and I'll be even happier when the SC beats down Obamacare and you and the libs cry and whine about it (as you all so often do). But hey, how much healthcare do you really need living in your 'rents basement...Keep on keepin on...loser.

The more you project what you need to believe onto me in order to not feel so bad about the fact you stepped in the feces of your own ignorance, the more you make it obvious how pathetically deep that ignorance is, jr.

Anything else in your pathetic life you would like need to project onto me to make you feel better about your ignorance (and how stupid I made you look)...feel free to do so.

Since we are just copying/pasting:

Basement Troll,

I'm good, just trying to stay out of fairytale utopian pseudo-reality basement world. My life is great, and I'll be even happier when the SC beats down Obamacare and you and the libs cry and whine about it (as you all so often do). But hey, how much healthcare do you really need living in your 'rents basement...Keep on keepin on...loser.

matt is in for one hell of a surprise when the SCOTUS sides with the Obama administration and the majority of informed Americans on the constitutionality of the AHCRA. He fails to account for the altered configuration of the court by next year.

matt.

Since we are just copying/pasting:

You have done nothing but copy and paste....and hurl insults and projections....mostly because I pointed out that you copied and pasted someone elses argument as your own....word...for....word.

LOL!!!! Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb.....

(Man you are stupid. It's almost like you are setting yourself up for me to slam....thanks, btw.)

Again, I guess ignorance is bliss. You never really refuted the many points listed that I copied/pasted. You are only hung up on me not including quotes or citations (again, on a message board). And, actually, if you were to have bothered to actually read it all, it was not copied word...for...word. Again, this shouldn't matter. The argument should matter, so its very interesting to note that you can't get past the lack of citations and simply deal with argument itself (except to put a liberal spin on it). Man, this is fun, the liberal arguing style tactic is just one big circle of silliness and semantics. (I guess living in the basement creates cognitive issues in the mind of a troll). And the court will not be altered at all, so next year, so I'm not sure what your pseudo-intellectual liberal buddy Paul is talking about. The same Justices that currently reside on the SC now are the same ones who will decide the constitutionality of Obamacare....FAIL. (Also, if Obamacare is constitutional and is such a great thing for America, why is it that Nancy Pelosi, who helped orchestrate and pass this bill, has given the highest amount of waivers to HER OWN district than any other city in America?) See, there you libs go again; your pathetic hypocrisy knows no bounds (unless, of course, you live in your parent's basement).

matty matt.

Again, I guess ignorance is bliss. You never really refuted the many points listed that I copied/pasted

Yes I did.

I disagree with the agrument from Eric that you parroted. I think Lopez strengthens the case for the individual mandate.

The reasoning in Lopez was that the gun law went to far in it's use of the commerce power because, "we would have to pile inference upon inference" to reach the conclusion, as the minority suggested, "that if someone shoots another person in or near a school, the victim's injuries generate costs, and insurance companies must draw the funds to pay for them from nationwide insurance pools."

The health care mandate is entirely different. There is no need to stack inferences to reach the conclusion that congress has the power to regulate insurance and the medical industry in order to solve a problem that is directly related to those industries.

In Lopez, the commerce clause was a bit of a stretch. In the case of the mandate, it is not.

---------------

And had you actually researched the issue, you would understand it enough to make your own arguments, parrot. Any idiot can copy and paste, but in doing so, they only make clear that they allow an ideology to spoon feed them what to think.

And, actually, if you were to have bothered to actually read it all, it was not copied word...for...word.

You did add some blather and empty claims....LOL!!!

Again, this shouldn't matter. The argument should matter, so its very interesting to note that you can't get past the lack of citations and simply deal with argument itself (except to put a liberal spin on it).

The argument does matter, as does your inability to defend it....because you did not make it....you copied and pasted it.

Do not blame your ignorance and inability to defend what your were fed on me, kid. Your ignorance is not liberal spin....it is your ignorance.

(Also, if Obamacare is constitutional and is such a great thing for America, why is it that Nancy Pelosi, who helped orchestrate and pass this bill, has given the highest amount of waivers to HER OWN district than any other city in America?)

This is interesting. Let us dissect.

Pelosi giving waivers, the highest or not, says nothing about the constitutionality of the law.

This is just another deflection, and logically makes no sense.

So, not only do you need to study up, jr, it appears you also need a logic class.

(You have lot's of work to do. You better get out of the basement you keep projecting I am in, and get started. LOL!!!)

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

Again, I guess ignorance is bliss.

Not judging by your demeanor.....LOL!!!

Basement Troll=FAIL. Not sure how bringing up the cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, and sestak 7, all done in shady backroom deals by your uberlib president who preached transparency, is just 'blather and empty claims.' This is another lib arguing style tactic. Just call things that EVERYONE knows occurred 'empty claims and blather'. LOL!!! I love it.

Again, the constitutionality of this bill will not simply rest on previous cases, or precedent, as you erroneously claim. The constitution obviously came first, before your uberlib court decided to stomp all over it and set precedents that were unconstitutional. Speaking of interpretation, are you really so obtuse as to think that the founding fathers would have wanted America or the SC to 'interpret' any law that would force Americans to purchase a product against their will? Obviously the answer is no. Which is why your liberal head cant stop spinning when it comes to precedence. There is no REQUIREMENT of the SC to rely on precedence, so quit being an uninformed socialist and get out of that basement sometime...

Roger Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the judge presiding over this case, did so because of a single word: Severability.

A single law usually contains many different provisions. Lawmakers know that if someone challenges the constitutionality of a statute, they often challenge only one or two provisions of it. So lawmakers usually try to make sure at least part of their law will survive.

The process of striking down only part of a law is called "severability." Therefore Congress almost always inserts a severability clause, saying that if part of the law is struck down, the remaining provisions continue in full force and effect.

Congress did not insert a severability clause in ObamaCare. So even though only a couple provisions of the health care law are being challenged in the Florida case—those two provisions being the individual mandate aka the requirement that every American has to buy insurance and also the sweeping expansion of Medicaid—the issue arises that if a court strikes down either of those provisions, it might strike down the entire statute.

The legal counsel representing the states in Florida, led by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (and her predecessor Bill McCollum) and Washington, D.C.-based lawyer David Rivkin raised the issue of severability in this lawsuit (as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli likewise did in his Virginia lawsuit).

So I filed a brief in Florida on behalf of the Family Research Council to fully explore the issue of severability to assist the states in challenging ObamaCare.

The states lost on one of their issues yesterday. Judge Vinson carefully considered their argument that Medicaid has become so overbearing that it’s no longer a voluntary program, and thus that it becomes coercive of the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The judge said that while this argument was plausible, it goes against every other court to consider Medicaid and is contradicted by the declarations of a couple states in this lawsuit that they could withdraw from Medicaid, so he sided with the Obama administration on that count.

But he also said the Medicaid issue didn’t matter, because he struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and then held that the mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ObamaCare law.

Thus, in striking down the mandate, the court struck down all 2,700 pages, including the Medicaid overhaul.
Severability is an issue so far off the beaten path that few lawyers have ever dealt with it, even though including a severability clause in legislation—or in contracts—is so common that it’s now boilerplate. So it would surprise most lawyers that a judge would strike down all of ObamaCare.

But it’s not surprising if you look at how the Supreme Court deals with the issue of severability. The High Court instructs that first you look to see if the law doesn’t even make sense anymore, that grammatically and logically it becomes gibberish. If so, you strike down the whole thing.

However, if the law still makes sense grammatically, that’s not the end of it. A court must instead then ask if the challenged provision is integral to the law, such that Congress would rather have no law at all than have the law without the unconstitutional part.

Not only does ObamaCare lack a severability clause, Congress also includes in the individual mandate section (which is Section 1501) a declaration that the mandate is “essential” to the statute functioning in the manner Congress desires. This closely tracks language in the Supreme Court’s precedents for when a court must strike down the entire law.

So Judge Vinson’s actions were not only appropriate, they were necessary. A lower-court judge must faithfully follow the Supreme Court. When it comes to ObamaCare, as I explained in detail in my brief and as Judge Vinson explains in his opinion on pages 63 to 74, the only proper action is for a court to throw out the entire statute, and return this issue to Congress to write a new law.

Judge Vinson shows us in this decision exactly what a good federal judge looks like. This case was a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law, which makes it a victory for the American people.

Ken Klukowski is director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, and a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

Read more: #ixzz1du2Bx4Oy

Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States,” Judge Vinson wrote. “If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a transaction … it is not hyperbolic to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.” He warned that the Obama administration’s logic could give government the right to interfere into “even personal decisions about whether to marry, whom to marry, or whether to have children.”

"In defending the law and the individual mandate, the Obama administration has said that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which permits federal regulation of interstate commerce, allows the federal government to impose fines on those who don’t buy health insurance, since that decision impacts the market by driving up prices.

Some lower courts have agreed, but others have deemed the individual mandate a form of overreach by Congress. Two of the three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals called the mandate “unprecedented.”

“The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure,” the decision states in part"

"There was a similar ruling by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia last year and 26 states have joined in a suit seeking to overturn the bloated bill that would take 16 percent of the American economy and put it under historically inefficient governmental control.

Judge Henry Hudson in an earlier ruling had found that to force citizens to buy only government insurance and then fine them if they didn't was actually a tax. President Obama has consistently maintained that it was not a tax. Liar!

The United States Constitution does not force someone to do something they were not already doing. "It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can limit inactivity under the Commerce Clause... Everyone must participate in the food market...under this logic, Congress could (mandate) that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily. If they didn't buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system," Vinson writes.

Then he gave another analogy, "Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile - now partially government owned - because those who do not by GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business. The individual mandate exceeds Congress' commerce power, as it is understood, defined and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law."

U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) issued this, "A federal judge in Florida confirmed today what I have been hearing all over Wyoming - President Obama's budget-busting health care law simply does not pass constitutional muster. The ObamaCare mandate, which is central to the President's health care law, represents an unprecedented overreach that encroaches on the rights guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. Today's ruling hit the bull's-eye."

Next step is for the case to go the Supreme Court where Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote. This probably won't happen in 2011 and the mandate element of this unconstitutional ObamaCare doesn't kick in until 2014. There is still time for you to lobby against the Obama administration tyranny. President Obama has appointed two left leaning judges recently to the Supreme Court of our land. Judge Elana Kagan did her college thesis on how great socialism is.

What if you were a young person struggling to start a business and made the decision to not pay to join the unconstitutional ObamaCare because you needed every cent to keep it going? You would be fined plus have to pay the policy. Dark ages all over again! Is debtor prison next?

The Obamacare health reform act congress just passed threatens to put 16% of a free market economy under government control. When, I ask you, has the government run anything better or more efficiently than free enterprise? Never! I do admit health care reform is needed. However, the 2,300 page act does not even address the real issues like: 1. Tort reform (limit the amount and damages in lawsuits). 2. Let health insurance companies sell policies across state lines and country boundaries to increase competition. 3. Make it easier and less expensive to get drugs approved by FDA. 4. Other cost saving ideas like streamlining FDA drug and new medical procedure approval."

"The Commerce Clause

One of the Federal Government's enumerated powers is to regulate Interstate Commerce. Here's how the United States Constitution describes that power:

The Congress shall have Power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Here is why invoking the Commerce Clause fails: It is clear that "doing nothing" is NOT an act of commerce. Thus "doing nothing" cannot be regulated by the Federal Government via the Commerce Clause. In contrast, if the act of a "doing nothing" on the part of some citizens, impacts Life, Liberty, and Happiness with a State, that State can legislate Mandates for the benefit of all State residents.

But the federal issue is not that easy: One Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, raised a question of "undercutting" in regard to regulating Interstate Commerce. Hence the question arises: Will an American citizen's choice to NOT purchase a good or service (health insurance) have an effect upon Interstate Commerce that "undercuts" a broader regulatory scheme of Interstate Commerce?

But this question jumps the gun! The "act of non-commerce" that is alleged to undercut a broader regulatory scheme, is a commerce question originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate, in the first place. This means, that the Federal Government is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (mandating everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created."

In other words, the constitutional regulation of "Commerce . . . among the several States" is Commerce that the States originate/create; thereafter, the Federal Government has constitutional power to regulate that State-Initiated Commerce.

So even if "doing nothing" does have an effect upon the regulation of Interstate Commerce, this legal logic leap frogs over the prior question, a question that the Supreme Court has never ruled on: Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power in the first place, to require individual citizens to purchase a product or service — can the Fed force citizens to buy health insurance?

According to the Federal Judges who have ruled in the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the answer is "no!" — the Commerce Clause does not justify the regulation of non-commerce among the States — acts of non-commerce originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate in the first place.

Virginia Lawsuit Against ObamaCare

Under penalty of law, ObamaCare will compel all citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty — again, the Fed is trying to call this penalty "a tax," because Taxation Authority is granted to Federal Government via the Constitution. However, citizens of Virginia have been granted liberty by State Law to be free from federal coercion: Citizens of Virginia have freedom NOT to purchase health insurance.

The Virginia law suit alleges that the Fed has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy "a good or a service." Such coercion by Federal Mandate overreaches States Rights reserved in the Tenth Amendment, AND also violates Individual Rights protected by the Ninth Amendment.

In addition to the State of Virginia's Law Suit, twenty 20 States have jointly filed suit in a Florida federal court, also alleging that President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill is unconstitutional. The two Law Suits have one common issue: On page 19, stipulation #65, the "Florida" Lawsuit asserts:

"The [Patient Protection and Affordable Care] Act is directed to a lack of or failure to engage in activity that is driven by the choices of individual Americans. Such inactivity by its nature cannot be deemed to be in commerce or to have any substantial effect on commerce, whether interstate or otherwise. As a result, the Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause, Const. art. I, § 8."

While purchasing insurance is correctly deemed an act of commerce, the "lack of or failure to engage" in commerce cannot be considered . . . an act of commerce; thus such inactivity (doing nothing but being an American citizen) cannot be regulated by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Federal Government has "enumerated" powers: Eighteen 18 explicit powers total. In just a few minutes, you can read ALL the powers that the Federal Government has been given BY THE STATES. All other powers not mentioned in this list of 18 eighteen, are powers reserved to the States, as granted in the Tenth 10th Amendment."

I used quotations and citations, so no liberal deflecting and bitching this time, basement guy. While at work, I feel it is simply easier to use quotes from other scholarly sources that destoy your arguments, rather than essentially write out the exact same thing myself (which simply takes so much longer). I am sure you will have some kind of issue with this, and instead of debating the points contained within, you will simply deflect and bitch that I copied and pasted from other sources (which is completely normal considering the above paragraphs debunk your false-hoods). Happy reading, basement boy!! LOL!!! Man, you really are dumb. Just boggles the mind.

matt: How do you know that the SCOTUS won't have a different composition by February of next year? You don't........and don't try answering my question with a question. I was, and still am, correct. You hadn't even anticipated the possibility of a change as one way the Obama administration could get its way. Though I do doubt that it will be necessary for them to resort to that action. They will win based upon the fact that no one is going to be incarcerated for not buying health insurance.

Pssst!

Matty, posting content without giving proper citation to the source is considered plagerism around here!

It is AGAINST the Newsvine COH...

Anything you copy must be in 'block quotes' with credit given to the source...

So, either get off your lazy ass & post correctly or suffer the consequences!

matt: I used quotations and citations

BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAA!!!!!!!

And still, all you did was copy and paste a bunch of random articles.

You DID NOT form an argument, and then use precedent to back up that argument.

So....let us examine:

Post 2.37:

You parroted the entire article from Mr. Ken Klukowski....word for word, jr. You did cite him, but you have also made it very apparent that you do not understand the issue well enough to make an argument on your own.

Post 2.38:

You parroted two articles, word for word, on right wing blogs that you did not even bother to cite, so I will do so for you.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/appeals-court-individual-mandate-obamacare-unconstitutional

http://www.deflationeconomy.com/obamacare-unconstitutional.html

Post 2.39:

This copy and paste most likely came from a site called the Conservative Samizdat, although it was in other places as well.

http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/2011/11/obamacare-unconsituional-romneycare.html

---------------------

LOL!!!! Man you just don't get it, do ya?

These are not your arguments. They are parroted, word for word. You do not understand them, or you would not have had to parrote them, word for word.

Most of them are easily refuted using precedent and the constitution as it has actually been interpreted, jr.

Most of the arguments in the copy and pastes, I have already refuted in previous posts. You would know that if you actually understood the issue.

LOL!!! But, anywho...I have thoughly enjoyed making ..or no...letting you make a fool of yourself today. You have got to be the stupidest poster I have had the pleasure of mocking in some time. So thanks.

Basement Troll=FAIL IN-FN-DEED.

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!

Game, set, match!!!

Fiesty.

Pssst!

Matty, posting content without giving proper citation to the source is considered plagerism around here!

If he did that, his entire posts would consist of block quotes.......LOL!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! You two socialistic parasites deserve each other!!! Fiesty, I thought you had run off to a park somewhere, ya know, to go poop in the street or bitch and moan about not having the things you want in this life. Notice, I used quotations, thus telling readers that those words were not mine. So, quit being such a failure and actually refute what the articles say. (like basement boy, I'm sure you can't).

Basement troll, Again, you fail to really refute anything, even though I posted new material with completely different angles, yet you just apply a blanket statement saying "I did refute all of that in previous posts." Sure....oh wait, yeah...not really. Nice try though, again. And you are still pissing and moaning about precedent, which I provided for you much earlier, yet you just said that you disagree with my precedent....which isn't really proving anything, other than providing your opinion. Again, I simply pasted articles that contained my feelings on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare. I already explained that this was done in favor of saving time (since I work 9hrs a day). I realize that this concept is foreign to you two lazy losers who probably don't have jobs, which is why you are able to post on message boards all day long and spend your time googling supreme court cases for precedents regarding the bill (precedents that are counter-intuititve and contain logical fallacies by the way) LOL!!! I guess the both of you are just constitutional scholars and know the law better than federal judges who have ruled against Obamacare. I mean, it's obvious that you guys are worthy, contributing members of society right? The internet will always need trolls to play on message boards. I guess I forgot how smart you libbies really are. How can I get that? I mean, I want to be a douchebag who lives in my parents basement too. I really want to find a park and live there while I poop in the street and assault cops. Isn't that what you guys should be doing, instead of attempting to engage in an intellectual discussion? LOL!!

I must say, you guys really take the cake. It has been wonderful watching liberal failures' heads spinning all day! Basement, I agree with your sentiment. I haven't been more baffled by a pseudo-intellectual in a long time. Your inability to actually say anything through all your bs is astounding. I really thank you for that! It just reinforces my belief that liberals will always be intellectually inferior and that socialism will never work. Bye for now douchebags, let me know if you ever feel like seeking employment in the real world instead of sucking a living out of the rest of society....

What an impotent little troll you are Matty

It's not too obvious you are late for your anger management classes eh?

Do you kiss your mother with THAT mouth?

You might want to talk to someone about upping your medication dosage little buddy! ;o)

Oh, and having had the last word in this thread, I think I will be moving on(so, be rest assured that anything you post in this thread from here on out will not be read by me, unfortunately. I know how important it is to you guys to get that last word, but, alas, that won't happen...this time). But I do hope to see one or both of you on future threads here at the wonderful 'discussion' board at MSNBC.com. It has been a very satisfying, informative, stimulating...and ego-building experience! And basement guy, you ever decide you want to get out of that basement, you let me know. I could hook you up with a job, no problem! BWHAHAHAHAHAAHH!!!!!!!!

Oh, and having had the last word in this thread,

Oh, so not only are you impotent, you're also a coward! lmao@U Matty!

Nothing I enjoy more then running jagged toothed trolls off!

A lot of you are ignoring the real issue here.

FORGET ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE ISSUES FORGET ABOUT THE JUSTICES POLITICS.

Feisty, let's say you are right, and they uphold the law.

Under this interpetation of the Commerce clause, what will be the limits to the governments power?????? THERE WILL BE NONE!

Think long and hard about that people. And remember, no matter which party you are against, they will someday wield that same power!

If that doesn't scare the funk out of you, you're an idiot.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Repule or Feisty, I'd love to hear some rational argument why my post is in some way not true. Would you be happy if the Republicans were in charge, and forced you all to buy municipal bonds?

matty matt.

It has been wonderful watching liberal failures' heads spinning all day

It was fun watching you spin in circles trying to talk about something you obviously do not understand.

It was even more fun mocking you for it.

And even more funner was the fact that your stupid arse kept coming back for more.

LOL!!!

Oh, and having had the last word in this thread, I think I will be moving on(so, be rest assured that anything you post in this thread from here on out will not be read by me

Now why don't I believe that? LOL!!!

Maybe you won't. I suppose it is possible you have finally realized how badly you got humiliated.....maybe..

And basement guy, you ever decide you want to get out of that basement, you let me know. I could hook you up with a job, no problem

Well, how very nice of you. You probably have a lot of knowledge as to where a guy living in his mommy's basement could get a job, huh?

LOL!!!

Later days.....

Alil.

Repule or Feisty, I'd love to hear some rational argument why my post is in some way not true. Would you be happy if the Republicans were in charge, and forced you all to buy municipal bonds?

First. Congrats. You are one of the very few people who spell the name correctly. Most people glaze right over it and miss the spelling.

Second. There are already very few limits on the commerce clause. This is nothing new, so I am not sure why you are so scared now.

One of the limits that does exist, however, is that the statute must be rationally related to the end that congress is attempting to accomplish.

The other limits is politics. (And that one, beleive it or not, is a pretty powerful limit. Stick around this politics thing for a while, and you will learn that.)

Repule, you are wrong. Under current existing interpetations of the law, the Federal Government cannot compel private citizens to purchase a commercial product from a private for profit corporation. This is known. In fact, you yourself know it. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

The fact they they are trying to break new ground is the reason we are having this discussion, and the reason this is going to the Supreme Court.

And I personally am not willing to trust "politics" to limit politicians once they have legal access to my piggy bank. Anyone who is that trusting is a fool, and deserves to get their savings stolen by a corrupt political system that is controlled by corporate interests.

Anyone who is that trusting simply hasn't been paying attention.

He should have just made it a tax. But typical Obama, he can't even get something that simple correct.

Repule, you are wrong. Under current existing interpetations of the law, the Federal Government cannot compel private citizens to purchase a commercial product from a private for profit corporation. This is known. In fact, you yourself know it. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

No sir. You are wrong. Under the current interpretaions of the law, there is NOTHING that stops the Federal Government from passing laws that require you to buy something.

That is not a constitutional question. That is a political one.

John Roberts:

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

The fact they they are trying to break new ground is the reason we are having this discussion, and the reason this is going to the Supreme Court.

The fact that they are breaking new ground does not mean the mandate is unconstitutional.

And I personally am not willing to trust "politics" to limit politicians once they have legal access to my piggy bank. Anyone who is that trusting is a fool, and deserves to get their savings stolen by a corrupt political system that is controlled by corporate interests.

Anyone who is that trusting simply hasn't been paying attention.

Anyone who does not recognize that politics is already what limits the things congress does in most circumstances, is a political neophyte who obviously has not been paying attention.

You are wrong Repule and you know it. Please stop lying. The commerce clause has NEVER been interpeted to mean that the government can compel an individual citizen to purchase a commercial product from a private for profit corporation. As far as your assertion "there is NOTHING that stops the Federal Government from passing laws that require you to buy something." well that's where we disagree, and that is what The Supreme Court, not you or I, will be deciding. And your statement that "That is not a constitutional question. That is a political one." is also completely and utterly False. The Supreme Court is deciding this as a legal, not a political matter.

Anyone stupid and foolish enough to trust "politics" to limit the things congress does is a political neophyte who obviously has not been paying attention.

You are wrong Repule and you know it. Please stop lying

I am not wrong, and I am not lying. I clearly laid out the reasons why the mandate is constitutional, and the precedent that supports it. You have yet to make any argument you could support, jr.

The commerce clause has NEVER been interpeted to mean that the government can compel an individual citizen to purchase a commercial product from a private for profit corporation.

Again, that is not the constitutional question.

As far as your assertion "there is NOTHING that stops the Federal Government from passing laws that require you to buy something." well that's where we disagree, and that is what The Supreme Court, not you or I, will be deciding.

Ok. Why do you disagree? What is your argument? What are you using to support that argument?

Or is it, as I have speculated, that your position is simply what you want to believe?

Stop accusing me of lying, and present your argument, sir. (And try to support it.)

And your statement that "That is not a constitutional question. That is a political one." is also completely and utterly False. The Supreme Court is deciding this as a legal, not a political matter.

Why is it false, jr? You keep claiming this, but FAIL to show how, or why.

I realise you think it is a constitutional question, but the fact is, if the Supreme Court rules as the precedent suggests they will rule, they will affirm that it is a political question.

That is essentially what they are deciding....so please present your argument as to why the mandate is unconstitutional using the actual interpretation of the constitution and precedent.

Anyone stupid and foolish enough to trust "politics" to limit the things congress does is a political neophyte who obviously has not been paying attention.

LOL!!! You are a political neophyte, jr.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I trust congress for anything. The reality is, kid, congress already is limited by politics on most issues.

For example, they could raise your taxes to 75% of your income. They could do a whole lot of things, but they don't.

Why don't they? POLITICS JR,

That's how a democracy works. Stick around and study up, you'll figure out how our government works....eventually.

Dennis,

Good morning Dennis, I hope all is well with you today. If you recall I have been calling for the Supreme Court to take this case for several months as has the 26 states in the Florida law suit. It was the administration that wanted to let it play out in the lower courts. I am glad that the Court will rule and we can move on, this one law (ACA) has divided the country more than any other law I can think of right now. My two major concerns are the individual mandate and the increased cost of medicaid to the states.

I do believe President Obama and the democrats, if the ACA is ruled unconstitutional, will push for a single payer law, which is what they have wanted all the time.

It's divided the country, okay. More than half the people oppose it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Seems the more people know about it, the less popular it gets.

This is a lose-lose proposition for Obama.

Suppose the Court finds the law unConsitutional. Goodbye signature accomplishment- and campaigning on HCR would net Obama as much support as campaigning on his "success" on the economy.

Suppose it's found Consitutional. Do you suppose that all the people- the majority- who want it repealed will suddenly embrace it?

I don't. In fact, I believe it will make people that much more determined to vote Obama and the remaining Democrats in congress out the door- to guarantee its repeal.

June should be interesting. . .

Nice work, Dennis. Excellent info.

Hi Sarge,

Every Republican has vowed to repeal the ACA but they do not propose any replacement plans or ideas. At most they say push it back to the States which will be another drain on already struggling states. It wouldn’t be any different than how states compete with each other for jobs which does nothing to move our country forward.

I believe a single payer (Medicare for all) would be the best solution and would drive medical cost down.

NoJoe:

It's divided the country, okay. More than half the people oppose it

Seems the more people know about it, the less popular it gets.

Wrong again NoJoe:

According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June. The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54% in early summer.

"The health insurance mandate has gained most support since June among older Americans and among lower-income Americans," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "A majority of independents opposed the measure in June, but 52 percent of them now favor it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/cnn-poll-support-rises-for-health-insurance-mandate/

Dennis--you are correct. The only way to drive down costs of our health care system is to remove the profit motive--and the only way to do that is with a single payer system. A couple years ago, very few were for this, but as time has gone on, I see more and more support. We are the only industrialized nation without a national plan for all citizens. We have the most technology, pay the most, and have the worst outcomes--documented by WHO and The Commonwealth Fund.

Un huh. So, I just went to today's amazingly coincidental HCR poll, and boy, was that eye opening. Do a little prognosticating for me-

If I did a poll on, oh, say, Obama's job approval- with a pool that was two thirds republicans- what would you think of the results?

Not much. Guess what? I'd be with you on that.

So, CNN finds- wowie zowie!- a big jump in the number of people who support the mandate! 52% of 'em!

In a pool composed of two thirds democrats.

Pretty sad when the deck is stacked they only got a bare majority, huh?

I believe a single payer (Medicare for all) would be the best solution and would drive medical cost down.

Yes that's the dream. Unfortunately Medicare for seniors is broke so how exactly do we extend to 'ALL'?

In reality single payer will look like Medicaid for all, once they've cut the Doctors fees, who is going to be a provider, unless you pay more, or your employer pays you benefits like additional medical insurance.

NoJoe:

So, CNN finds- wowie zowie!- a big jump in the number of people who support the mandate! 52% of 'em!

In a pool composed of two thirds democrats.

Let's break it down, NoJoe. Here are the results by political affiliation. Pay particular attention to those who identify themselves as either Independent or Moderate.

Total------Favor 52% Oppose 47% No opinion 2%

Democrat------Favor 75% Oppose 23% No opinion 1%

Independent------Favor 52% Oppose 46% No opinion 2%

Republican------Favor 24%Oppose 76% No opinion *%

Liberal------Favor 71% Oppose 28% No opinion 1%

Moderate------Favor 60% Oppose 39% No opinion 2%

Conservative------Favor 30% Oppose 68% No opinion 1%

Alan, NJ:

Unfortunately Medicare for seniors is broke so how exactly do we extend to 'ALL'?

Too easy. How do we pay for it now?

Essentially, it would be either a tax on employers or a tax on all citizens, spreading out the cost among all of us.

The problem with the latter, however, is that you might not be able to depend on employers who provide insurance right now to share that money, which is currently a fringe benefit, with their employees so that they can afford to pay the tax. Most probably would, but some would not. They would hoard the windfall as they are hoarding cash right now, while cutting jobs and benefits.

The remainder of the money could come from reduced overhead costs. Right now, health insurance companies turn 5 to 6 percent profits on top of the bloated salaries they pay their executives, which are part of the 10 to 15 percent overhead they also incur. Medicare runs at about 5 percent overhead.

If you could save 10 to 15 percent right off the top of current health care costs, without cutting another dime, and eliminate the self-interest factor that continuously drives up costs, can't you see how that might actually work?

Alan - "who is going to be a provider". The answer is simple. We will not have either a Medicaid or a Medicare for all system. We will have a VA system for all where the federal government is the payer and the provider. Unless we make all the providers government employees, it won't work. What we need is a true take-over of health care in this country.

Nationalize healthcare and adapt it all to the tri-care system currently used by the DoD and VA.

They pay ~30 Billion for over 20 Million recipients including Active Duty soldiers, active duty families, and military retiress.

If those numbers scale (and they should), we'd actually be cutting a LOT of governmental spending.

The Affordable Health Care Act, is what this Radical Right hates. However, it's good for America and the people who oppose it, well lets just say they aren't very smart.

teknishan,

Keep in mind they are young healthy people. I realize they have costs associated with the injuries because of the war. That hardly offsets the older people. However even if you pay $450 billion to take care of everyone I think it is a deal since the costs sould be $1500 per person each year. A great deal compared to $1500 per month we now pay for families of 4.3 to an insurance company.

nurse..."The only way to drive down costs of our health care system is to remove the profit motive--and the only way to do that is with a single payer system."

False! It is not the only way to drive down cost. Currently only a few health insurances companies are allowed to operate within each state. If the Feds were honestly interested in bringing down costs, they would open up competition between health insurance providers across state lines.

The best example comes from laser eye surgery, rarely covered by health insurance. When that procedure first came to the U.S. it was very expensive, but as competition arose across the nation costs dropped dramatically.

Do you know why no one in the government is on the rampage for an open market solution? Because it's about control and power.

Ana,

As a war vet, I'm going to say "You Don't Know What You're Talking About."

People coming back from war are not 'young and healthy'. Old vets? They like to die of things like cancer. Being in Hiroshima 2 weeks after a nuclear weapon detonated will do that to you.

Or at the Cho-Sin Reservoir when it was 50 below freezing and you were getting overrun by Chinese in the middle of the night.

No. the DoD hospitals take on a wider array of cases, and with great expertise and professionalism. The Military Community has health problems which the standard community will never, ever have to witness.

Agent Orange.

massive trauma to limbs from explosive devices

Nuclear contaminants

AIDS and other STD's which we don't even have a name for (So this one time, in Turkey, there was this guy on the boat who...)

Etc

As stated in #2.7:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... WERE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE LATITUDE CONTENDED FOR, IT WOULD SUBVERT THE VERY FOUNDATIONS, AND TRANSMUTE THE VERY NATURE OF THE LIMITED GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA." -- James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Unconstitutional...

THE PEOPLE need to realize that it is not finished when the Supreme Court rules on it. Anyone remember a little thing called PROHIBITION? THE PEOPLE told the government via willful, belligerent disobedience that they would not tolerate it. Do the same with this BS {Barry Sotoro} and it will be brought down as well. I thought the people of this country were against BULLYING... I, for one, will NOT be BULLIED into following this obnoxious program. If they had the balls to do it for booze, where the hell are ours?! We the People actually have the final say...

Q: Do you trust the federal government?
A: Ask the Native Americans!

nurse-1006475 "Dennis--you are correct. The only way to drive down costs of our health care system is to remove the profit motive--and the only way to do that is with a single payer system"

Can you name a single program run by the government that is efficient?

I've seen several studies that show that the typical government run program costs about 50% more than a comparable privately run (for profit) company - and that's AFTER their profit.

The reason is that a private company holds costs down, while cost controls in a government run program value 'social policy' far above cost efficiency. I have worked in both the public and private sector, and believe me, cost is not a significant consideration in the public sector.

Roy--show me your "studies"!

nurse - think about it in this manner Obamacare (HCR + Affordable care...) consists of say 3000 pages as written by congress. Once passed the bill goes to the bureaucrats who write the laws that enact the bill. You know they look at what it says and then apply it to meet all potential possibilities and exceptions. Now the act becomes say 6000 pages.

No way can anyone suggest that the government will not want to enforce it to its fullest extent. Enforcement requires funding and funding generally will require oversite. Since funding is tax and fee driven with no regard towards efficiency (does the term government waste and fraud ring a bell?) do studies really matter to you? If so, how about current events within the past 5 years. The most obvious would be government backing of home mortgages made by fannie and freddie, green energy backed loans for solyindra and others + other grants and loans given to others and not realizing their stated goals.

Private enterprise will do a closer risk analysis of a proposal because the enterprise wants to make money, not lose it. Government has no perogative to generate profit or efficiency since they are supposidly acting in the realm of "general welfare".

Unfortunately for the taxpayer a program can fail just as easily in the private sector as it can in the government sector, the difference being is that the private sector is more likely to cut its losses quicker while the government will debate it or throw more $$$ at it.

If you choose to say that profits denote greed, think about this....

The private sector and its associated profits is what makes it possible for government to pay government workers and to support "general welfare" programs. If government cared anything about efficeincy we wouldn't be carrying $15 trillion in debt.

nurse-1006475 "Roy--show me your "studies"!"

http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/viewpage_r.asp?ID=privatization

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

Another simple example is Obama's support of Solyndra. Any private company would have looked long and hard at Solyndra, and rejected the loan request, and even the government's experts predicted in early 2009 that Solyndra would likely run out of cash by September of 2011 - and they did - right on schedule. Companies make investment decisions based on a profit and loss estimates - the government makes investment decisions based on 'social policy'. That's a terribly inefficient way to do things.

Roy Wilson asks

Can you name a single program run by the government that is efficient?

A single one? Not being a socialist country, the government's function is providing unprofitable public services, not running business for profit. However, there is one example of socialism in America. The Tennessee Valley Authority has been providing electricity to the southeast US since the 1930's. It is efficiently operated as a business.

National parks, streets and roads, disease control, dredging rivers, controlling airways, flood control and fighting wars are services that have rationales other than operating for profit. These are services that make our lives more confortable, but cannot be universally provided at a profit. These functions cannot be compared to what private firms do for profit.

Under the ACA, the private insurance industry is alive and well and will have millions of more clients. Those private companies will can be as efficient as their CEO's run them.

Absolutely right, Ana. These idiots think that they live in a bubble and, somehow, no one else's world touches theirs. One good plague or pestilence is all we need.

And if conservatives have it their way, even the medical research capability needed to save themselves will be gone.

Everyone in D.C. and this country knows that a single payer system is the only way to successfully address our healthcare system out of control costs, everyone knows insurance costs rising at a double digit pace is unsustainable and ridiculous, but our damned Congress only responds to one thing, money, and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries have lot’s of it. Congress is comprised of some of the greediest, soulless, morally bankrupt crooks to ever walk the face of the Earth, may they burn in hell for eternity for turning their backs on the country and it's citizens they swore to protect just to make a buck.

Medicare for all would do absolutely nothing to bring costs down. Medicare has NEVER paid for itself. It blew through its initial 10 years cost projections in 6 years, and doubled every 4 years for the next 12.

How exactly would single payer bring costs down? Do you think that we will have as many doctors and clinics and hospitals as we do now if there is single payer and they want to pay out like Medicare/Medicaid does now? Or will there be even a greater doctor shortage when those highly intelligent individuals realize that they will never become rich working for peanuts? If you have single payer, will doctors still have to have malpractice insurance? Will the government supply it? Will the government tell the insurance companies how much in premiums to collect for it? Will it also tell insurance companies how much to pay out on malpractice claims?

w bush..."Everyone in D.C. and this country knows that a single payer system is the only way to successfully address our healthcare system out of control costs,..."

False! See 3.15 above.

(mikehataway...please try not to destroy people's bliss with reality.)

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a Supreme Court decision. In fact, not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision.

American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

• States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
• The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

There are only a handfull (> 10) of cases where SCOTUS has overturned itself, all of which met a "length of time on the books (or stability)" criteria, i.e., the appeal was rendered 30-50 years after the original ruling . Recent precents set by the SCOTUS (as early as 2005) would be a main sticking point for opponents of healthcare mandate.

Maybe. Some states, like mine, don't completely mandate coverage. They leave a door open by only requiring "proof of financial responsibility" if you don't have insurance.

Which simply means there are a lot of uninsured drivers out there.

I know this for a fact because it always seems like it's the uninsured drivers who hit you or your family members.

No, because not every state requires you to have auto insurance. It's not Federal directed, it's based on theStates.

In my state, insurance is mandated. However, most just show proof of insurance when renewing plates, then let it lapse.

Why would you let it lapse?

I understand that, Paul. However, by saying mandates are unconstitutional, could not someone come back and start to look at the state mandates? After all, federal law supersedes state law.

Driving is a privilege; living is a right. One can be mandated and regulated, one should not.

Just have a feeling some lawyers could have a field day with the outcome. And I don't let my insurance lapse, but a lot do. Think it has something to do with how much insurance costs.

Understand, but it's not a Federal issue with auto insurance. If you State requires it, it's their law.

Insurance does cost a lot, this is from having a 17yr old on my policy, but like Paul said, driving is a privilege, not a right. If the state you live in requires auto insurance, than one must pay for it.

It might be a state law, Paul, but if the federal mandate is unconstitutional, then so the mandate in Massachusetts that Romney supported.

A state cannot enact a law that trumps the federal Constitution.

The better argument is the "privilege" argument. Driving is a privilege. But then again, if you think analyze it correctly, so is health care. Thus, like car insurance, if the mandate kicked in only if the person wanted actual care, it would have a better chance of surviving challenge. Unfortunately, if we did that, we would also be in the untenable position of cutting the poorest of the poor out of even emergency room care when they are desperately ill.

All of this is why single-payor was the right answer all along.

The mandate would have been acceptable if the damn bill would have passed with it's center piece the "public option" intact, but it didn't, Congress sold out to insurance industry lobbyists and gave us a bill that mandates you buy insurance from a for profit insurance industry no matter the cost with no alternatives, to force people to buy a product from a corrupt monopoly is bull$hit, the mandate should have been removed when the public option was removed, and Obama should have not signed it into law in it's current form, as he was and is aware of, him and his handlers instead accepted a lousy and hurtful bill hoping they were smart enough to spin it into something other than the failure for the people it is, well their not fooling anyone.

I have no clue how Massachusetts health care law works. I agree about privilege argument, but if I don't want Government Health Care, do I still have to pay for it?

Paul-Florida, you pay for a lot of things you may or may not want.

You may not use an Interstate highway, but you pay for it. You may not have children, put you pay for education. You may never visit an emergency room, but you pay to keep those services active.

If we leave all of these mandates to the states, how will that affect interstate commerce? Or interstate travel, in the case of car insurance? Will we become like Europe used to be, and be required to stop at every border to show our papers?

PPACA is on a national level, Auto insurance is a state issue they have nothing in common!

tedcrawford --

PPACA is on a national level, Auto insurance is a state issue they have nothing in common!

Yes, they do, as I mentioned to Paul. The U.S. Constitution trumps any inconsistent state laws, as well as federal laws.

It's the fundamental point of Constitutional law.

Without understanding at least this much, you cannot make a credible comment.

It is possible that a Supreme Court decision striking down the mandate could open up a whole bunch of Constitutional cases on a variety of state laws that also mandate people to purchase things. It will depend on the reasoning of the decision.

Anna - your statement that state law cannot trump federal law is not necessarily true. States can impose laws where the federal government has no jurisdiction. The constitionallity in question is whether or not the federal government can impose such mandate (is it in the constitutional powers of congress). This would mean the states can do it or not.

A state CAN pass laws that the federal government cannot.

The federal government powers are enumerated in the constitution.

the 10th ammendment gives a state the right to pass ANY laws, subject to the self-same constitution, that is not enumerated in the constitution and is not a federal law. (Thus, since there's an ammendment AGAINST slavery, states cannot pass pro-slavery laws)

AnnaMolly..."A state cannot enact a law that trumps the federal Constitution."

Are you sure about that? Isn't it illegal to own a gun in New York City, in clear violation of the Second Amendment?

It is not illegal to own a gun, any gun (not an automatic weapon) in NYC.

It IS,

Virtually impossible for a common citizen to get such gun registered in the city. (I say virtually because there is a lot of who you know involved in registering a gun in NYC)

Concealed Carry is also very legal in NYC, but, try and get approved as a common citizen. Not gonna happen.

They cannot eliminate the 2nd amendment, they cannot create any law on any level that prevents a law abiding citizen from owning a firearm. That being said,

they CAN make it virtually impossible to get permission to purchase a firearm by making local laws that the who, what, when and where of legal ownership occurs.

So NYC doesn't have an ACTUAL ban on guns ALA what Washington DC. used to have, they have a VIRTUAL ban like Massachusetts has.

Oh, one more thing,

Federal Law does NOT trump state law. Think of federal law as being the MINIMUM law a state must hold to.

To illustrate this is easy.

It is clear that federal law does not make it illegal to own an automatic weapon, it does require an automatic weapon owner to be registered and licensed through the BATF.

States can, like the State of Washington, outright ban all ownership and possession of automatic weapons. and this is entirely constitutional.

In the State of Washington,

Possession of an automatic weapon, the parts for a automatic weapon, or the plans for an automatic weapon is a class "A" felony, punishable by the death penalty.

Conspiring with another to purchase, assemble, or manufacture an automatic weapon is also a class "A" felony carrying the same potential penalty.

So basically, having one, or even thinking about having an automatic weapon in the State of Washington is in fact illegal, far in excess of federal requirements.

So state law can, and frequently does, greatly exceed federal law.

Still blubbering over the 2000 election? Better get your hankie ready for 2012.

Booby approves of court appointed presidents. Majority vote of the American people doesn't count.

That is the election of a president is set up on the electoral college system where the winner gets all the electoral votes of the state. So you really don't have to have win the popular vote, You just have to win the correct states and you can be President, and still not have the majority of the people behind you. It is in the constitution, one of the few things that our government still follows.

yes corporations are people now

Same old same old huh Smokie? The government is NOT taking over health care. The ACA only sets up rules that the PRIVATE insurance companies need to follow like: They can't drop a person for being sick, they can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they must spend 85% of premiums on health care.

That't not a takeover. It's making insurance companies honost and fair. Heck, even the insurance companies are not fighting this law. Why? Because they will be getting millions more customers paying premiums!

No smokie, I wanted it. I want a major change in the healthcare system in the United States. It is broken, doesn't work, hasn't worked, is rated 37th in the World, is rated number 1 in costs which are going up and will continue to do so unless regulated. In fact, I agree that this healthcare reform bill is not what was needed. What was needed then and now and will be in the near future is single payer. Don't you think you could have saved all of us a lot of time, if you'd just commented that you are "ok" with your healthcare, that your familly is covered and you "ain't payin' for nobody else". Perhaps the only time your attitude will change is if you fall out of the loop, then we'll hear from the "other side of smokie".

What rights did women lose?

Ole Elvis couldn't find that chapter in uncle alinskys book!

Are they dishonest because they did something wrong or is it your opinion?

You are right, except that auto insuranxce is a state law, not federal. That's where republicons get crazy. They will have a very tough time arguing againt Interstate Commerce though.

Why is health insurance considered interstate commerce when auto insurance is not. The federal government does not regulate auto insurance or any other type of property/casualty insurance so why can they regulate health insurance?

"Why is health insurance considered interstate commerce..."

It's not. There is no competition between insurance companies operating in different states. The states set the number of insurance companies that can operate within a state. Many states only have 5. Does that sound like free market competition?

If you live in Maryland and are injured in a car crash in California. The hospital in California charges your health insurance provider in Maryland. Presto! Interstate Commerce.

The obvious difference is you don't have to drive, consequently you don't have to buy auto insurance. Mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional Socialism is an OBAMAnation!

Tapado, so you've solved the problem of our disgrace of a healthcare system. I agree with you. Let's scrap this healthcare reform bill and go with exactly was suppose to be that major change....single payer. Let's do it now for the Great Obama-nation. Oh tapado, I forget the reason for your comment; you didn't vote for President Obama in 2008. You aren't voting for him in 2012. You have your healthcare in place. You're ok. You like the status quo. You prefer our 37th world health ranking number 1 in costs, your employer provides you with healthcare so your costs are low..............so, you're ok. That's not good enough for the nation. The healthcare industry in the US is going to change no matter what. The sooner that change is made the better off ALL of us are going to be. Thanks for your comment. I agree on the thrust of the comment.

Hey durt_bagg, that's because it's you have to give part of your income because it's an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or did you just happen to miss that in your rant?

Oh wait, I forgot, the Constitution only applies ONLY when left wingers want it to, right? And if they happen to disagree with something in the Constitution, they just try to ignore it, or come out with STUPID rants about how your tax dollars are used.

Great point Cheryl. If someone chooses to not be responsible and buy insurance, we the taxpayers will happily pay for their care. We shouldn't force everyone to actually chip in and pay a little so everyone can get care when the unforseen does happen. Why should they when we have so many like you who are willing to pay for them. i'm sure they thank you.

There inlies the problem, vet. Why should the taxpayer be responsible for someones bill because they don't have insurance.

Furthermore, how many of thos "uninsured" currently qualify for existing programs at the federal and state level? Was this massive overhaul of the health insurance industry really necessary or was it so that someone could put a notch in their belt?

Bookem' ...it's about power and control. Anyone who believes the government actually cares about you and your health as an individual....well, I have some nice, water-front property to sell you.

here is a good for you... true story.... a engineer from a Canadian company was in Vegas for a convention and the last night there suffered a heart attack. He lived and called his wife from the hospital and she gathered up all her money she could lay her hands on and flew to Vegas. When she arrived she saw her husband and he was due to be discharged. She went to the business office to pay the bill. When she arrived they said the bill $120,000 and could they have her insurance information. She was terrified, she had no where near that amount of money.

She explained that her and her husband were from Canada and they did not have insurance to cover the USA. The person said just a minute. She said if you don't have insurance your cost is $23,000. She had enough cash and credit to cover that .

My question is why does no insurance cost so much more oh lets us see.. the Dr's want X dollars but the insurance companies will only pay Y dollars so the Dr's and other medical facilities ( who have to make a profit) charge Z and after discount get X dollars.

In the mean time insurance companies can deny any claim for any reason and you have no real recourse. You can fight it but if it goes to court you could go broke. The insurance companies will get richer while those that have to pay for the insurance will get more in debt. I know i figure by Christmas with insurance I will be close to $50,000 in debt.

This is and isn't like Medicare. You get Medicare Part A regardless of whether or not you contributed to the program over the years. You can get Medicare if you are disabled and haven't made contributions. Medicare payroll deductions are more of an excise tax, which is in the purvue of congress.

The Federal government forces you to buy its services, and pay into a retirement account called Social Security. If you comply with the new law, all your preceeding medical debt should be erased.

It sounds like Obamacare would have helped you out as the group insurance would have cost about the same but would have provided better coverage. You must have an individual policy, been out of network or something to have to pay so much for so little. Your problem is what Obamacare is intended to remedy.

Nice try, Garrison. We already have health care for children.

It is good to see the last refuge of the political scoundrel still is being used, though.

We had a Senator that didn't listen to the Majority. He has a new job now.