Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare ruled unconstitutional (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Obamacare ruled unconstitutional
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom: So you'd be fine with Arnold running for president as well?
I personally don't think he owes any allegiance to his country of birth. That said, I think it's a longer stretch from "child of a citizen who may have been born somewhere else but was immediately granted citizenship and lived in the U.S. his whole life" to "naturalized alien who became a citizen as an adult." As a consequence, I'd be very surprised if that didn't go to the courts.

[ February 01, 2011, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19698 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nicely said, Tom. Not exactly how I'd put it, but I think you got the gist of it.

quote:
If we break the constitution the rules go out the window.
The intent of the "natural born" clause in the Constitution was to ensure the President's allegiance was to the United States.

The intent of the election clauses in the Constitution was to ensure that the President was elected by the citizens of the United States.

Ignoring this "natural born" clause does not[/i] break the intent of the Constitution. But tossing out the candidate who got the most votes in the election [b]would break the intent of the Constitution.

By the letter of the law, he might have to be removed because he did not qualify. But to do so would break the intent of the Constitution, the intentions of our Founding Fathers who wrote the document.

Which is worse: to break the letter of the Constitution, or to break the intent of the Constitution?

To me, it is the intent of the Constitution that is sacred, the ideals that are embodied by the words. If the words obviously deny the intent, which do you think should have precedence?

Trying to throw out the President over a technicality is like trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And it makes me angry that so many people are so emphatic that we should kill the baby because the bathwater may be dirty. [Mad]

Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bah. I was overly optimistic. The law to fix the issue with adoptions has been introduced several times but never made it through the wringer yet.
Posts: 8083 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward: I think it's better to prevent one man with questionable credentials from serving than it is to invite ambiguity and thumb-waving in a document as important as the constitution.

I don't think Obama should be removed from office based on the evidence I've seen. If it was clear that he was not a natural born citizen, I think he has a responsibility to step down, and I think he should be removed if he doesn't.

Please keep this thread on the Obamacare issue. That is primarily what I was talking about in that quote you lifted from my post, and it's the name of this thread.

Posts: 2843 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*nod* The thing with "Obamacare" is, it's still up in the air. I don't think there's any question that the bills as signed into law contain provisions that are technically unconstitutional; each of those provisions, however, are ones that have plenty of precedent. That's why it's possible for different courts to have different opinions on the issue. The big question, then, becomes whether the current makeup of the court is willing to roll back some of those precedents in favor of restricting federal intrusion into commerce. I'm pretty sure it is, but equally sure that it's not willing to completely scrap the law for fear of igniting a major cluster-f**k over different laws, at least not in the current political climate. If they can delay the ruling a year, though, I could easily see the current majority being interested in causing some electoral chaos by throwing the whole thing out with a ruling broad enough to make States' Rights a major issue; I think Scalia would love that sort of thing. [Smile]

[ February 01, 2011, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 19698 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

"Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said."

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

I like it. Supposedly, the Swiss have something like this going on, and it seems to be working out well for them. It also makes the point quite well about having boundaries for governmental power to force us to buy stuff.

Posts: 7329 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you like it in the sense that you'd support such a law, or do you like it in the sense that you wouldn't support such a law.
Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like it in the sense that it illustrates a point.

I wouldn't support such a law, but I don't hold it against the Swiss that they did it. If people don't trust themselves enough to handle a gun, I don't think it's a good idea to force them.

Likewise if people don't want to go see a doctor, it's not right to force them to do that either. And if you have to have health insurance, it's not a far stretch to think you'll have to go see a doctor to get it. More people are hurt and killed in America each year by doctors making mistakes and by legal drugs given by doctors than by guns. I might have just made that up, but it's probably true.

Posts: 7329 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
I guess their scope is limited on that. Washington beat him to the punch there by 200 years.
Posts: 8083 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think the point is illustrated very well.

From the point of view of liberty, "we're forcing you to give money to the state, so that the army can buy weapons of its own choosing to keep for itself" (aka taxation) seems slightly less free and slightly more authoritarian than "we're forcing you to buy weapons of your own choosing, that you'll keep yourselves".

I am not judging its constitutionality, but it certainly seems morally better than taxation on the axes of both personal freedom and utility.

Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Washington beat him to the punch there by 200 years.
Washington was obviously a socialist. :-)

[ February 01, 2011, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 2997 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if a watergun would meet the requirement [Smile]

It is entirely possible that the SD mandate to buy a gun would be constitutional/unconstitutional and the federal mandate would be constitutional/unconstitutional. The constitutionality of one has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the other. The first is based on the state constitutional powers, and the second is based on the federal constitutional powers. So presumably the drafter of the bill isn't too bright if he can't tell the difference.

Posts: 7106 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
I guess their scope is limited on that. Washington beat him to the punch there by 200 years.
Congress beat them to the punch 219 years ago with the Militia act of 1792. It wasn't based on the commerce clause though.

As I recall, in the Militia Act of 1702 males between the ages of 18 and 45 with certain exceptions were automatically conscripted into their state militia and as part of that militia were required to outfit themselves with a musket, bayonet, and various other pieces of equipment, and train two times a year with their local militia. This first Militia Act also set forth the manner in which the President could exercise his power to call up the state militias as set forth in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. This was modified in later Militia Acts including the Militia Act of 1903 which created the National Guard and provided for Federal outfitting of the National Guard.

[ February 01, 2011, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A clarification from Vinson today:
quote:
In his ruling, Vinson repeated what he has said previously — that “the citizens of this country have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible.”

“That was nearly eleven months ago,” he wrote. “In the time since, the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and the legal arguments refined. Almost everyone agrees that the constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward.”

<snip>

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court.

The bullet point version:
  • Vinson meant it when he said that ObamaCare was unconstitutional
  • it was unlawful of the Obama Administration to continue implementation despite his order
  • as an act of judicial grace, he'll construe this bull**** motion as a request for a stay, but only on the condition that the Administration files an expedited appeal within seven days
The last thing this administration wanted was to expedite the appeal.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
* Vinson meant it when he said that ObamaCare was unconstitutional
* it was unlawful of the Obama Administration to continue implementation despite his order
* as an act of judicial grace, he'll construe this bull**** motion as a request for a stay, but only on the condition that the Administration files an expedited appeal within seven days

I'm reading his entire ruling - among other things he notes that he might not even have the legal authority to halt implementation.

quote:
For example, my declaratory judgment, of course, only applies to the parties to this litigation. The State of Michigan is one of those parties. However, a federal district court in Michigan has already upheld the Act and the individual mandate. See Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010).Can [...] I enjoin and halt implementation of the Act in a state where one of its federal courts has held it to be Constitutional?
quote:
At this point in time, and in light of all this uncertainty, it would be difficult to deny the defendants a stay pending appeal.
Also he didn't construe the motion for clarification as a motion for stay, he instead based on the statements of the Administration that they would file an motion to stay if his clarification was adverse and his belief that it would be valuable to expedite things.

So contrary to your assertions, he appears to be stating that his hands are tied.

Note that a motion to stay can probably still be filed (since presumably this motion does not contain all the arguments that such a motion might reasonably contain).

Also he states in the ruling that it is reasonable for both the public and jurists to differ on belief as to the constitutionality of the law, and essentially he feels it must be 'kicked up stairs'.

Posts: 7106 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds that the Supreme Court will have to review the law.

The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal.

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

<snip>

The ruling comes six weeks after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate in a similar suit. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard two related cases in May, has not issued its rulings yet.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the link for the scholars among us.

It includes more details:

quote:
The panel partially upheld a ruling issued in January by Judge Roger Vinson, who struck down the entire health reform law. However, the 11th Circuit said that the rest of the legislation can stand even if the mandate is unconstitutional.

The panel also said that the law’s expansion of Medicaid is constitutional, ruling against the states.

The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits.

So not a complete upholding on Vinson's ruling, but it does uphold the key part.

Personally, I wonder why the federal government doesn't just argue that law is simply a tax rebate for people with health insurance, rather than a "mandate" to buy it? [Wink]

I also wonder why the Mass. health care law was never overturned?

Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I also wonder why the Mass. health care law was never overturned?

State vs. Federal mandate.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I wonder if a watergun would meet the requirement [Smile]

You laugh, but one of my sisters was charged in Michigan with a "drive by shooting" felony for squirting a classmate as a prank with a watergun from a moving car.

Fortunately she ended up with a judge who wasn't running for election based on an approval rating from the police station, and the judge called the cops unspeakable words and shamed them while letting my sister go.

Posts: 36723 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits.
This seems to me a reasonable objection. Perhaps Congress should be able to require all Americans to purchase health insurance, but it needs a better argument than that this follows naturally from its power to regulate interstate commerce. As the critics say, if that argument is allowed, Congress could use similar arguments to justify anything at all.
Posts: 4341 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
quote:
The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits.
This seems to me a reasonable objection. Perhaps Congress should be able to require all Americans to purchase health insurance, but it needs a better argument than that this follows naturally from its power to regulate interstate commerce. As the critics say, if that argument is allowed, Congress could use similar arguments to justify anything at all.
Which means that we need to look at revising the interstate commerce clause rather that trying to randomly invalidate it based on pure judicial opinion of "overreach"
Posts: 8083 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, what's your opinion of the Rausch decision on medical Marijuana? When one grows a potted plant in the windowsill, in order to obtain medication permitted by state law, has one engaged in "interstate commerce"?
Posts: 36723 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like it is almost definitely going to the Supreme Court, since a Cincinnati appeals court all ready ruled it constitutional.
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some splits in the circuits sit around for decades, but this one's got to resolve fairly soon.
Posts: 36723 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From a policy perspective, I prefer Vinson's ruling that invalidated the whole law to this ruling, which only invalidates the individual mandate.

No politician, Democrat or Republican, will revoke guaranteed issue or community ratings. But without the mandate, young, healthy people won't have incentives to buy insurance. They'll have incentives to wait until their sick to buy policies. Sick (and from the perspective of insurers, expensive) people will comprise a greater portion of the insurance market because insurers will be unable to turn them away. So costs will skyrocket. Since the government will be subsidizing health care for low-income people, the deficit will also skyrocket.

The individual mandate is the lynchpin of the whole system. The pre-ACA system, terrible as it was, might be marginally better than ACA without the mandate.

Posts: 809 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WS,

The reason Obamacare could not be sold as "rebate" to the insured, is that he would be required to sell it as a tax to his constituency... and they voted to have him steal for their government services.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... oh, I almost forgot... he did tax "cadillac plans".

Why miss an opportunity for class warfare? [Wink]

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PresidentJack
Member
Member # 6662

 - posted      Profile for PresidentJack         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward -

"I also wonder why the Mass. health care law was never overturned?"

G2 already said this but the difference is that the federal government is restricted in a way that the state government is not. The interstate commerce clause grants the federal government powers under certain conditions, that the circuit court has ruled (correctly, IMO) don't apply here.

I think that this is a bigger difference between Obamacare and Romneycare than Tea Partiers give Romney credit for.

I thought this site did a good job summing up the conservative position on the issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274693/eleventh-circuit-takes-aim-obamacare-avik-roy?page=4#

Posts: 51 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G2 already said this but the difference is that the federal government is restricted in a way that the state government is not.
The problem I have is the seeming double standard regarding individual rights.

While it is apparently unimaginable to allow the Federal Government to have such overwhelming, overintrusive power to dictate what we must buy, what we must wear, what we must eat and how much we must exercise--to the extent that the Federal Government could mandate each of us to eat broccoli every day [Razz] --power that violates the individual rights and freedom of every American citizen to determine his or her own destiny, and must be stopped at all costs...

...it's OK for the States to do it. [Smile]

As Pyrlon pointed out in another thread, if something is a right, it is a right regardless of which State you live in. But if it's not a right, then what, exactly, is the objection? That States must have more power than the Federal Government to control our lives?

I don't quite see it.

Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It could be a States' Rights issue... 10th Amendment sort of thing.
Posts: 7329 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just refreshing my memory here... from wiki:

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

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

Obama would apparently have us believe that the power to force us to buy health insurance from a private insurance provider was delegated to the United States by the Constitution in the Commerce Clause.

For all the people who go straight for the car insurance angle, despite all the other differences this is another crucial one between that and Obamacare. There is no federal mandate for car insurance. It's an issue resolved state by state.

I'm not sure how there is any way to see this as anything other than a Constitutional overreach, unless the Commerce Clause means both nothing and everything, means that there is no limit on federal power and that the federal government can force you to buy anything because everything that you can buy is, by definition, commerce, and the feds get to regulate it. That's just a head-shaker shoulder-shrugger...

Posts: 7329 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought this was interesting and it may answer some questions, including one I didn't know to ask:

http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/02/02/how-romneycare-is-constitutional/

"Although the case was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds, the judge clearly explained that Mitt Romney’s health care did not violate Federal or State constitutional principle because a state can regulate health care on the basis of a state’s police power. The judge writing in Fountas v. Dormitzer explains the legal concept of police power:

“Police power” is an old fashioned term for the Commonwealth’s lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution and its express delegation of power from the people to the government.

In other words, the federal government and the states derive their power to pass laws from two completely different sources. The federal government is limited in its ability to pass laws so long as its within its enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution. What this means is that the federal government may exercise only those powers granted by the federal constitution. In contrast, states have a general “police power,” in which they can pass laws so long as its rationally related to promoting the health, safety, and morals of the community. The significance of this legal doctrine is that states have the ability exercise plenary power and are presumed to have all powers not expressly prohibited to them by the constitution.

The judge explains that Massachusetts was well within its police power to pass RomneyCare because “as a rational basis of fact can be reasonably conceived to sustain it, the act is a proper exercise of police power” and as a result, a “proper exercise of the police power violates no provision of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights…” The entire holding of that case can be read here.

As a result, RomneyCare will be upheld as being Constitutional under Massachusetts State Constitution or the United States Constitution, regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court decides on ObamaCare. As a matter of constitutional law, a state can impose a mandate whereas the Federal government cannot because due to the fact that state governments and the federal government derive their power to pass laws from two completely different sources. This means that there is a huge distinction between a mandate enacted by the federal government or a mandate enacted by the state legislature. As a result, RomneyCare is constitutionally valid under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts state Constitution."

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

The thing I didn't know what that RomneyCare was passed based on his state's police power. That may not violate their state's Constitution, but it seems to me that the best way to pass a law like this would be by Constitutional Amendment, both at the state level if a state wants it or at the federal level if Obama and enough Americans want it. If the arguments for it aren't persuasive enough to convince the large number of people necessary to pass it, then the people shouldn't have it foisted on them heavy-handedly.

It wouldn't surprise me if some states had constitutions that might not allow a Romneycare type law. But I'm not sure about that.

But at least the questions regarding Constitutionality are answered well enough.

Posts: 7329 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And on the Federal level, the power to charge yo for services you're receiving from the Federal Government is inherent in its taxing power. It doesn't force you to buy anything from a private insurer. It just charges you for the default public insurance that you're using if you don't get some other plan.

(That said, it absolutely should offer the choice to everyone to enroll in a better public plan than the bare-bones catastrophic one that you get by default; people should be able to pay an income adjusted or subsidized premium and buy into Medicare coverage at any age)

Posts: 8083 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pytrolin suggested, "...we need to look at revising the interstate commerce clause rather that trying to randomly invalidate it based on pure judicial opinion of "overreach."" To this I would agree, in that it has been extended to many areas having no clear relationship to its original intent of giving our government jurisdiction over trade disputes among the states, but in practice changing our Constitution is near impossible. It becomes feasible only when the interpretation of some provision hurts so many people that our entire populace becomes outraged. That insurance provision isn't going to destroy hundreds of thousands of people, it will cost some of them some money, in an amount inconsequential compared to their total living expenses. People will still pay less for minimal health insurance than for food and housing, even if the requirement stands.
Posts: 4341 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although President Jack and cherry do provide the arguments on why the mandate may be considered unconstitutional, they don't address the philosophical arguments.

Saying that the Massachusetts mandate is legal while the Federal mandate is not is saying that the government has the right to tell us what to buy, just not the Federal government.

I'd like to see that on the Tea Party sign: "Make Sure ONLY the State Government Can Tell Us What to Buy!" [Big Grin]

Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PresidentJack
Member
Member # 6662

 - posted      Profile for PresidentJack         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Although President Jack and cherry do provide the arguments on why the mandate may be considered unconstitutional, they don't address the philosophical arguments."

"Saying that the Massachusetts mandate is legal while the Federal mandate is not is saying that the government has the right to tell us what to buy, just not the Federal government."

Right, I was responding to your question about why the Mass law was not overturned. Saying the government shouldn't do something, is much different than saying it doesn't have the right to. I don't think the Federal government or a given state government should adopt a policy like Obamacare or Romneycare, but Massachusetts certainly had the right to.

Putting aside constitutional issues, I do think it is philosophically less bad at the state level as well. Our health care system was broken. I didn't expect the law in Massachusetts to be great, but I've been wrong before. Part of the beauty of our federalist system is that we can test out these different ideas at the state level before we attempt massive overhauls at the national level.

*Edited to make it more clear what I was quoting

[ August 19, 2011, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: PresidentJack ]

Posts: 51 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New GOP 2012 strategy involves reelecting Obama in order to ...
Posts: 36723 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like only one Health Care case will make it to the Supreme Court now.

D.C. appeals court has ruled that Obamacare is constitutional.

quote:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Congress, acting under its power to regulate interstate commerce, had the authority to require individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins," Judge Laurence Silberman, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote for the court.

The dissenting judge did not even address the constitutionality of the law.

quote:
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented from the court's decision, but he offered no opinion on the merits of the law. Instead, he said that lawsuits challenging the insurance requirement are premature because the mandated penalties amounted to a type of tax that can only be challenged after it is collected, rather than before. The penalties don't begin until 2014.
So two against and one abstention. [Smile]

And this may be more than just another of the long list of appeals court rulings:

quote:
Tuesday's appeals-court ruling is notable because the D.C. Circuit's decisions traditionally get particularly close attention from the Supreme Court, in part because four of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, previously sat in that circuit.
Looks like we may all get to have health insurance come 2014, whether we like it or not. [Big Grin]
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure how you go from this,

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Looks like only one Health Care case will make it to the Supreme Court now.

to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Looks like we may all get to have health insurance come 2014, whether we like it or not. [Big Grin]

However, The Supreme Court will be taking up the constitutionality of the law this spring.

quote:
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul — a case that could shake the political landscape as voters are deciding if Obama deserves another term.

This decision to hear arguments in the spring sets up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement. And it allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

Yahoo

I suspect the outcome of this case will have pretty substantial ramifications.

Posts: 4698 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not sure how you go from this,...to this:...
Through this:

quote:
And this may be more than just another of the long list of appeals court rulings:
[Wink]
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1