Now that Obama and his allies have managed to pass his healthcare reform package, one of many issues it raises is: Is it constitutional? I've heard 37 states have filed lawsuits challenging the law on many grounds. These include: Enumerated Powers: Our constitution gives the federal government certain enumerated powers. None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories. I assume they'll try to use the super elastic commerce clause to justify ObamaCare, but that's a stretch. The courts have been quite tolerant of such stretches in the past, but this would take it to an entirely new level. Right to Privacy / Substantive Due Process: This was the basis of the decision that gave women the right to an abortion (Roe v Wade). Does the right to privacy not extend to other medical decisions? Such as what type of insurance to purchase (or not)? Isn't the level of government intrusion into healthcare under ObamaCare much greater than that under abortion laws? It would be ironic if this landmark liberal court decision became the basis to overturn ObamaCare. Tenth Amendment 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.The court has ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state decision making in the service of federal goals.. Well, there are many aspects of ObamaCare that could reasonably be interpreted as "commandeering" state governments. They are required to expand medicaid and set up insurance exchanges, things that could cost as state billions of dollars. Bill Mccollum, Florida Attorney general (one of the many who have filed lawsuits over this law) recently said: The second basis for this lawsuit is the commandeering of the assets of the state. In my case, in the state of Florida alone, for example, we're going to have to pay billions of dollars more in our state to comply with this law partly due to the fact that you're increasing rolls of the Medicaid recipients. More of them will go there, not only because they are going to be eligible, more people will be, but because of the individual mandate that will encourage more to sign up. And that's going to mean we'll add 1.2 million new Medicaid recipients to the already existing 2.7 million in Florida at this huge cost. And then, there are, of course, the provisions that require the states without getting any refund from the federal government to set up insurance exchanges, et cetera. http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4765 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590303,00.html Note: sections in blue are direct quotes.
Basically no, there is no case against it. States have the option to opt out of the system entirely. Personally, you have a choice of which insurance you want to buy. Social Security is already much the same thing, mandatory insurance against old age.
This is pure politics. That's why lawsuits have only been filed by Republican Attorney Generals. This is part of an on going effort to delegitimize the Presidency of Barack Obama. They also filed suit against President Clinton when we went to War with Bosnia. None of the Republicans filed suits in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney signed mandates into law. Republicans are just sore losers. Whenever they lose an election they will punish the Country for voting them out of office. They will not work with the other party in power, they will tie up the courts and waste millions of tax payer dollars with frivolous lawsuits, and even going as far as shutting down the Government. There's also a number of cases of Republican military officers who're refusing orders, on the grounds that he's not an American. The Republicans want a dictator ship, they don't respect the democratic process. They only want their ideas to be singed to into law. If anyone else besides them signs anything into law it's communism.
Untrue: Louisiana Attorney General (a Democrat) defends state's anti-Obamacare lawsuit Furthermore, the CBO in 1994 had this to say when Clinton was considering an insurance mandate: “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal governmentThat statement does not mean that such a mandate is definitely unconstitutional, but it does make clear that we're in uncharted territory here. If a case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could go either way (IMO). http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55971
LOL, this is last ditch plea/hope...but it has no meritt. And as soon as the elections are over this fall I think the AGs are going to lose interest in the deal...in no small part because everyone in the industry walks away with a prett good deal. Everyone in the industry, knew that the old model just was not sustainable and nearing collapse. If they the AGs were somehow successful in overturning a lot of established law, including civil rights law, in order to reverse healthcare reform it would not solve the problem. And the providers might not like the next solution that comes down the pike...like totally competitve healthcare markets. So I think this effort on the part of the AGs will quickly fizzle as soon as the fall elections are over.
He's wrong about that, George Washington forced (white) people to buy a rifle and ammo, and they could be fined if they didn't.
More broadly there have always been "duties imposed on individuals as members of society." Their called "taxes" and are generally used to purchase specific services that are heavily regulated by the government.
It's hard to see how abortion is protected by a right to privacy but other medical decisions aren't. I believe the way to have Obamacare overturned is as an infringement of our Right to Privacy (RTP) as set out in Roe v. Wade and the other Privacy cases. Since the RTP has been found to be a fundamental right the court must apply strict scrutiny to any law that infringes upon it. Since abortion as a medical decision between the woman and her doctor falls into this right to privacy, why would every other medical decision also not fall under our RTP? I believe that all medical decisions fall under our RTP. Once that hurdle is cleared, the government must show a compelling government interest in regulating this right. This I believe they can do. However, the key challenge is that this compelling government interest that allows the regulation must be “narrowly tailored” to serve that compelling government interest. What does this mean? In Roe it meant that the Texas law proscribing all abortions was too broad to be narrowly tailored. The court found that only once the fetus was viable could Texas prohibit abortions. Turning to Obamacare, is the 2400 page bill narrowly tailored? I don’t think so. The healthcare databases infringe our right to privacy as does empowering HHS to engage in rulemaking with virtually no restraints. I don’t think Obamacare could possibly withstand a RTP challenge under strict scrutiny. I am surprised to not see this challenge being advanced. As an attorney, A Catholic, and one who considers himself Pro-Life, the beautiful irony of taking out Obamacare with Roe is that it would chill the Left with the dilemma of either having universal healthcare or abortion rights. If a pregnant woman has a RTP regarding medical decisions regarding her child, why should every other citizen not have that right without HHS interfering and afffecting the ability to contract and have performed other important medical procedures?http://www.redstate.com/timgungoll/...ovides-constitutional-challenge-to-obamacare/
UW panelists say lawsuits challenging health bill lack merit The University of Washington billed it as a debate among distinguished law faculty over whether the new federal health-care law is constitutional. But while the four panelists at a packed event Tuesday may have differed on some of the finer points, they all agreed on the big question: They said the new law passes constitutional muster and that various lawsuits arguing the opposite — including the one joined last week by state Attorney General Rob McKenna — have little merit or chance of success.
And the government can draft you and send you to war to die against your will. And they can't make you buy insurance?
Maybe you could clarify your objection by pointing to any aspect of the bill that has anything to do with medical decisions, other than who pays for whatever they are.
True, the bottom line question is will the supremes make another exception to the law as they did for george II?
With the modern understanding of the Constitution- this is not unconstitutional But with the original understanding of the Constitution- this is power assumed by Federal Government which belongs to the State... Now Spidergoat is saying that States can opt-out.... Does that means no newer taxes will apply to those within that State? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How does this not fall under a Federal power? The Federal government can regulate interstate commerce and collect taxes to promote the general welfare, this was the understanding of at least one of the founding fathers, and it is settled case law, which means more than what one or more of the founders thought the role of the Federal government should be.
What doesn't matter is a nationalist founder rejected by his own people, i.e Hamilton, deciding what the Constitution says- what does matter is what discussions were happening that led to these powers. Having political puppets in the Supreme Court is just as meaningless when it comes to the understanding of the Constitution. Just use your brain and ask yourself- Why did they need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban Alcohol- didn't they have the 'commerce clause' then! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS- (I just listened to the so called 'debate' at the UW- I was disappointed that there was really no 'debate', it seemed like everyone was of the same mind from the beginning- and none of them bothered to quote the original sources of the understanding of the Constitution- The question they should have been 'debating' is if they (the panel) even understood the Constitution correctly in the first place!)
If it were unconstitutional to require people to buy insurance from private carriers, then one obvious fix if for government to tax us more, and then use the money to buy insurance from private insurers for each of us. That would, applied evenly amongst the States, be taxing and spending on general welfare, but we'd all get crappy policies that don't meet the terms we would have selected if we were picking the policy. We're better off keeping the money and selecting a policy for ourselves.
What really matters is the opinions of the supreme court members since them, especially the more recent ones. There is no one correct understanding of the constitution. It means what the supreme court says it means. Because they didn't just want to ban selling it, they wanted to ban drinking it.
Good for that university. Constitutional muster, huh? Here's my question: what ISN'T constitutional? The way these people reason (<-- Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) the constitution has NO meaning at all. Anything could be constitutional. Why do we frickin bother? Let's just get it over with, shred that stupid old piece of paper, and let the government do WHATEVER it WANTS?!?! Let them make every decision for us. They can regulate every little detail of our lives imaginable because they always know best! If Spidergoat doesn't already live here, I'm sure he/she/it would definitely move here for the micromanaging and constitution shredding! Can't ever get enough of that.
I think everyone on the supreme court should be replaced. They're not just meaningless: they're dangerous. You stole my line, beeyatch! How many of them were and still are Obama zombies? I'm guessing most of them.
So do we have a Constitutional Amendment for Marijuana? I don't think so... but I'm definitely sure the ban on marijuana is for usage as well..... it wouldn't make sense for feds going into hospitals and criminalizing the patient's use of medicinal marijuana. You can't have it both ways. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And by the way, if selling Alcohol was illegal then so is buying it because you are involved in illegal trade- just like in online piracy it is not only the person who shares copyright material but also the person using it that is liable for penalty.... So I don't see the point, as this is sufficient to stop all buying and selling and essentially usage :shrug: Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
