economic guru
Login to Send PM
I agree it's unconsitutional to force someone to purchase health insurance. I despise this entire IRS involvement.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Living is not the same as driving. Driving is priviledge, living is a right.
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM
Probably my favorite write up on the issue was in the LA Times in 2009, b y Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/06/opinion/oe-chemerinsky6
Nitsud Regnifloh
Valerio Heights
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
I find the whole thing rather affirming.
Regardless of political affliation, whenever people can't accomplish something legislatively they seek out a Court remedy all the while proclaiming the awfulness of Courts getting involved in Legislative affairs when it is the other way around.
Despite the obstacles that can create to "getting things done," I really do find it affirming that we have a system with so many venues to alter the government.
A.
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Gotta say this is gonna be interesting. I've seen well reasoned arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
So, what is or was the rationale for requiring people to purchase health insurance ?
I voted for Obama, but I'm not going to have a knee-jerk support for what people refer to as Obamacare. What I've heard from proponents of a single payer system, is that the legislation we've ended up with doesn't do as much for ordinary Americans as it does for pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.
As for Obama, he doesn't seem to score high marks from advocates of 'sustainable farming' either, some of whom say his administration's support of the Food Safety Modernization Act furthers the interests of big ag at the expense of small producers.
I don't see myself voting Republican in 2012, but there seems to be a credible critique of Obama as a president who's allowing the foxes to continue guarding the hen house, so to speak, in terms of policies on agriculture, finance, and medical care.
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
Snarf wrote >>
Go Virginia!Oh yes, all states should emulate VA. Their AG and governor are such talented, thoughtful men.
Why so butthurt?
I don't live there so I don't have to live with the consequences of their stupidity but why anyone should cheer anything done by Cuccinelli is beyond me. Between him and the governor, they have done more to try to send VA to the last century than I would have thought possible.
Pro Se
OTE-Franklin Park
Login to Send PM
There is little question this law is constitutional, Judge Hudson's (appointed by GW Bush) ruling notwithstanding. It is important to note that two other federal judges have already upheld the constitutionality of the law. I would go further in saying that we've got a great deal more to lose in the event the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court affirm Judge Hudson' ruling. Feelings towards the controversial law aside, declaring it unconstitutional sets a dangerous precedent and undoes 70 years of case law granting Congress plenary legislative power under the Commerce Clause. Those powers have been used in a myriad of circumstances, none of which would have been possible if the clause were read as narrowly as Judge Hudson would like. If you have any doubts about this, think no further than the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Today's decision opens a can of worms that hasn't been disturbed since West Coast Hotel v. Parrish--the famous "switch in time that saved nine" decision that allowed Roosevelt's New Deal legislation to pass constitutional muster.
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
berdawn wrote >>
rus wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
Snarf wrote >>
Go Virginia!Oh yes, all states should emulate VA. Their AG and governor are such talented, thoughtful men.
Why so butthurt?
I don't live there so I don't have to live with the consequences of their stupidity but why anyone should cheer anything done by Cuccinelli is beyond me. Between him and the governor, they have done more to try to send VA to the last century than I would have thought possible.
Actually, the scope of the suit is substantially broader than that. The suit was to declare the law unconstitutional. Therefore, it would affect the entire country. You will indeed "have to live with the consequences" of the suit if it is upheld, just like you have to "live with the consequences" of Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board even though those were not Ohio cases.
Of course, the real reason the ruling in Virginia might not touch Ohio is that it is almost certainly heading to the Fourth Circuit and thence to the Supreme Court, particularly if the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court. That would create a split of authority, assuming the other district court opinions upholding the individual mandate are likewise affirmed on appeal by their own respective circuits. The Supreme Court is highly unlikely to leave the circuits divided on a question of such national importance--especially given that the law applies uniformly across all states, rather than acting on an ad hoc basis.
Like others, I have seen some very strong defenses of the individual mandate and some very strong attacks against it. Personally, I hope the mandate falls because I don't see any limiting principle restraining the federal government's infringement of economic liberty and its ability to assume control of any part of the economy it wants if the mandate is allowed to stand.
rus
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
Personally, I hope the mandate falls because I don't see any limiting principle restraining the federal government's infringement of economic liberty and its ability to assume control of any part of the economy it wants if the mandate is allowed to stand.
I agree. The interstate commerce clause has been interpreted far too broadly for far too long.
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
rus wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
Snarf wrote >>
Go Virginia!Oh yes, all states should emulate VA. Their AG and governor are such talented, thoughtful men.
Why so butthurt?
I don't live there so I don't have to live with the consequences of their stupidity but why anyone should cheer anything done by Cuccinelli is beyond me. Between him and the governor, they have done more to try to send VA to the last century than I would have thought possible.
Actually, the scope of the suit is substantially broader than that. The suit was to declare the law unconstitutional. Therefore, it would affect the entire country. You will indeed "have to live with the consequences" of the suit if it is upheld, just like you have to "live with the consequences" of Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board even though those were not Ohio cases.
Of course, the real reason the ruling in Virginia might not touch Ohio is that it is almost certainly heading to the Fourth Circuit and thence to the Supreme Court, particularly if the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court. That would create a split of authority, assuming the other district court opinions upholding the individual mandate are likewise affirmed on appeal by their own respective circuits. The Supreme Court is highly unlikely to leave the circuits divided on a question of such national importance--especially given that the law applies uniformly across all states, rather than acting on an ad hoc basis.
Like others, I have seen some very strong defenses of the individual mandate and some very strong attacks against it. Personally, I hope the mandate falls because I don't see any limiting principle restraining the federal government's infringement of economic liberty and its ability to assume control of any part of the economy it wants if the mandate is allowed to stand.
My issues with Cuccinelli (and McDonnell) have to do with previous acts (LGBT, civil rights, education, civil war "anniversary").
Nitsud Regnifloh
Valerio Heights
Login to Send PM
but you dont live in Virginia...
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Pro Se wrote >>
There is little question this law is constitutional, Judge Hudson's (appointed by GW Bush) ruling notwithstanding.
You're quick to point out the appointing president, so I'll be just as quick to point out that both of the judges who have upheld the mandate so far are Democratic appointees.
It is important to note that two other federal judges have already upheld the constitutionality of the law. I would go further in saying that we've got a great deal more to lose in the event the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court affirm Judge Hudson' ruling. Feelings towards the controversial law aside, declaring it unconstitutional sets a dangerous precedent and undoes 70 years of case law granting Congress plenary legislative power under the Commerce Clause.
Actually, I think that establishing that Congress' legislative power under the Commerce Clause is not "plenary" would be a salutary development. But I'll give you credit for being up front about what you think this is all about: upholding genuine "plenary legislative power," i.e., carte blanche, for Congress to do whatever it wants because of the existence of the Commerce Clause.
Those powers have been used in a myriad of circumstances, none of which would have been possible if the clause were read as narrowly as Judge Hudson would like.
True, though we may be thinking of different uses.
If you have any doubts about this, think no further than the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Today's decision opens a can of worms that hasn't been disturbed since West Coast Hotel v. Parrish--the famous "switch in time that saved nine" decision that allowed Roosevelt's New Deal legislation to pass constitutional muster.
I actually don't think that this decision, if upheld, will be interpreted as a shadow reversal of West Coast Hotel, or even of Wickard v. Filburn, the New Deal era "cumulative effects" case that established that intrastate activity can fall within the reach of Congress' Commerce Clause authority if the cumulative effect of such intrastate activity has a material effect on interstate commerce. (I may be wrong about the "material effect" language--it might have been some other phrase to describe the effect--but the gist is as I've stated it.) For one thing, I think that the swing vote on the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy, would find a way to cabin any ruling against the mandate (assuming he's inclined to rule against the mandate's constitutionality in the first place) so that Wickard and its progeny (e.g., Raich) would survive. West Coast Hotel would never even come close to being touched.
P.S. It's generally a bad idea to begin posts on controversial legal topics with "there is little question that ..." Given the number of state attorneys general challenging the mandate, the amount of ink spilled on it in the legal academy, the amount of ink spilled on it in the popular and elite media, the fact that the challenges have survived motions to dismiss (and one challenge has now been successful on the merits), I think it's anything but obvious which way this will fall out. I have strong feelings about the mandate's constitutionality, too, but if you really think this is a slam dunk for either side, you're deliberately ignoring a lot of the complexity of this issue.
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
economic guru
Login to Send PM
Maybe congress and the President in power can soon select what color of shoes I can purchase and MUST PURCHASE - interstate commerce clause.
Maybe congress and the President in power can decide for me everything I can be allowed to purchase and MUST PURCHASE - interstate commerce clause.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030726_Nanci_Pelosi_Obamacare.html
When did the US become the Nanny State ?
Just raise everyones medicare/medicaid tax portion. If you have private insurance, that portion of the additional tax is then refunded to you as you wont need the government system.
Form of ID - Your SS card - case closed.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
