Obamacare is not unconstitutional

[middleagedgamer]

I just learned about the case in Florida that says that Obamacare is not unconstitutional.

At first, I was shocked. How the **** is it unconstitutional? Now, I don't like being forced to buy health insurance, any more than the next person, but I've basically just sucked it up, like a man, much like my requirement to purchase auto insurance.

After reading a bit more, however, I kind of see where he's coming from. However, I'm going to point out where I think he's wrong.

First, when a law is challenged as unconstitutional, the first order of business should be to decide what level of judicial review the law should get. I think Obamacare should get rational basis review, because 1) no suspect class is being specifically targeted, and 2) there is no fundamental right to control the fruits of your own labor (libertarians think there SHOULD be that right, but, as it is, there ISN'T that right.

Ok, so, if it gets rational basis review, it should be constitutional. All it has to do is be rationally related to ONE legitimate government interest to survive rational basis review. It doesn't even have to be the government's actual interest; as long as the court can fathom one, it should pass rational basis review.

To that end, while there may not be a legitimate federal power to mandate commerce (as opposed to regulating commerce that is already voluntarily being undertaken), that doesn't mean that it serves no other government interest that might be perceived as legitimate.

For example, it is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution that one of the purposes was to "promote the general welfare." Is that a legitimate government interest? If it is, is requiring the purchasing of health insurance rationally related to it?

So, there you go. It can pass rational basis review.

The only way I can see this law being truly unconstitutional is if there is some kind of fundamental right to control the fruits of your own labor, and while Libertarians and conservatives would definitely advocate something like that, as of right now, that right has not yet been put in the Constitution.

Now, I think the law should be revoked... legislatively... but, as much as I hate it, I don't see how it's actually unconstitutional.

 

[MaggieD]

I just learned about the case in Florida that says that Obamacare is not unconstitutional.

At first, I was shocked. How the **** is it unconstitutional? Now, I don't like being forced to buy health insurance, any more than the next person, but I've basically just sucked it up, like a man, much like my requirement to purchase auto insurance.

After reading a bit more, however, I kind of see where he's coming from. However, I'm going to point out where I think he's wrong.

First, when a law is challenged as unconstitutional, the first order of business should be to decide what level of judicial review the law should get. I think Obamacare should get rational basis review, because 1) no suspect class is being specifically targeted, and 2) there is no fundamental right to control the fruits of your own labor (libertarians think there SHOULD be that right, but, as it is, there ISN'T that right.

Ok, so, if it gets rational basis review, it should be constitutional. All it has to do is be rationally related to ONE legitimate government interest to survive rational basis review. It doesn't even have to be the government's actual interest; as long as the court can fathom one, it should pass rational basis review.

To that end, while there may not be a legitimate federal power to mandate commerce (as opposed to regulating commerce that is already voluntarily being undertaken), that doesn't mean that it serves no other government interest that might be perceived as legitimate.

For example, it is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution that one of the purposes was to "promote the general welfare." Is that a legitimate government interest? If it is, is requiring the purchasing of health insurance rationally related to it?

So, there you go. It can pass rational basis review.

The only way I can see this law being truly unconstitutional is if there is some kind of fundamental right to control the fruits of your own labor, and while Libertarians and conservatives would definitely advocate something like that, as of right now, that right has not yet been put in the Constitution.

Now, I think the law should be revoked... legislatively... but, as much as I hate it, I don't see how it's actually unconstitutional.

The "promote the general welfare" thingie is what it's been based on all along. The question is can the US Government force you to buy coverage from a private concern and then penalize you (in the form of taxes) if you don't.

 

[middleagedgamer]

The "promote the general welfare" thingie is what it's been based on all along. The question is can the US Government force you to buy coverage from a private concern and then penalize you (in the form of taxes) if you don't.

Ok, first of all, I've already pointed out how they can do that. As longa as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, it can pass rational basis review.

Second, I believe, not only can they do that, but they have done it, in the past. It's just harder to pinpoint because they've done the inverse of this.

What is the difference between paying higher taxes if you don't do something, and paying fewer taxes if you do do something, like buying a hybrid car?

This has often been summed up as the "Gay Tax." What's the difference between not getting a marriage tax cut, and having to pay more taxes, just because you're not allowed to get married? It may as well be an actively-imposed gay tax!

The only real difference I see at this point is... the taxes and actions linked to the taxes are inversed.

Can someone educate me of another real difference?

 

[X Factor]

Since guns are a Constitutional right, everyone should be legally required to buy one.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Since guns are a Constitutional right, everyone should be legally required to buy one.

Explain to me how that has anything to do with promoting the general welfare.

I admit: Congress does not have the power to mandate commerce. However, all that means is, the law should not pass rational basis review if mandating commerce is Congress's only interest.

Take Lawrence v. Texas for example. It is unconstitutional. Why? Because 1) sexual morality is not a rational basis, and 2) no other government interest is served by the law.

As long as some other government interest is served, it should pass rational basis review.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Let me put it this way:

Is it constitutional to ban suicide attempts?

If you answered "yes," then think about this: If you can afford food, but choose not to buy it, is that not a form of suicide? You would eventually starve to death.

Well, then, by that logic, it should be constitutional for the government to force you to buy food if you can afford to, and from a private vendor, no less.

Is it unconstitutional to require a diabetic to take his insulin shots, as required, or else he will be committed to an asylum, on the grounds that neglecting his insulin is a form of suicide? If he is required to take his insulin, then it should be constitutional to require him to buy it, from a private vendor, if he can afford it.

Obamacare is not requiring people who can't afford it to purchase health care (at least, not from what I've seen), so what's the difference, here?

 

[X Factor]

Let me put it this way:

Is it constitutional to ban suicide attempts?

If you answered "yes," then think about this: If you can afford food, but choose not to buy it, is that not a form of suicide? You would eventually starve to death.

Well, then, by that logic, it should be constitutional for the government to force you to buy food if you can afford to, and from a private vendor, no less.

Is it unconstitutional to require a diabetic to take his insulin shots, as required, or else he will be committed to an asylum, on the grounds that neglecting his insulin is a form of suicide? If he is required to take his insulin, then it should be constitutional to require him to buy it, from a private vendor, if he can afford it.

Obamacare is not requiring people who can't afford it to purchase health care (at least, not from what I've seen), so what's the difference, here?

Basically, you're doing a good job of illustrating the amount of control the government could gain over your life if Obamacare is upheld.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Basically, you're doing a good job of illustrating the amount of control the government could gain over your life if Obamacare is upheld.

Look, I don't like Obamacare, but... is there a right to not have the government intrude on your life?

I've got another example of the government "intruding" on your life, but it's not unconstitutional: Your house is too close to the corner of the street, so you can't install an in-ground pool in your backyard.

Those laws are on the books, everywhere!

The government shouldn't intrude on your life, but the dangerous precedent should be respected by the legislative and executive branches.

Think about this: President Johnson was the first President to be impeached, but he was not removed from office. You know why? Because the Congress at the time knew that they would be setting a dangerous precedent.

SHOULD the government intrude on your life? I don't think so.

However, to say that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to intrude on your life is simply untrue. They do it all the time.

 

[X Factor]

Look, I don't like Obamacare, but... is there a right to not have the government intrude on your life?

I've got another example of the government "intruding" on your life, but it's not unconstitutional: Your house is too close to the corner of the street, so you can't install an in-ground pool in your backyard.

Those laws are on the books, everywhere!

The government shouldn't intrude on your life, but the dangerous precedent should be respected by the legislative and executive branches.

Think about this: President Johnson was the first President to be impeached, but he was not removed from office. You know why? Because the Congress at the time knew that they would be setting a dangerous precedent.

SHOULD the government intrude on your life? I don't think so.

However, to say that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to intrude on your life is simply untrue. They do it all the time.

Are you kidding? The entire Constitution is designed to limit government intrusion into your life.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Are you kidding? The entire Constitution is designed to limit government intrusion into your life.

in certain areas, yes.

But, it is not a general ban on government intrusion. If it were, it would be unconstitutional to require licenses for doctors. It would be unconstitutional to have a minimum wage.

Virtually everything the government does "intrudes" on someone's life. Name me one thing the government does that does not have a direct impact on someone's life, course of business, or anything else they are interested in. Just name me one thing.

 

[Badmutha]

For example, it is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution that one of the purposes was to "promote the general welfare." Is that a legitimate government interest? If it is, is requiring the purchasing of health insurance rationally related to it?

So, there you go. It can pass rational basis review.

Let the author tell you what was meant by Promoting the General Welfare............

"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

in like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. to consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct & independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.

-------TJ


To say your argument is correct.......is to say The Forefathers and Founders were wrong..........
.
.
.

 

[Chappy]

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act basically implements an income tax deduction for those people who have health insurance coverage. It's totally constitutional.

 

[OhReally?]

There are several clauses that one could look to in order to "justify" the Health Care Reform Act.

 

[middleagedgamer]

To say your argument is correct.......is to say The Forefathers and Founders were wrong.

Fine, I'll go ahead and say it, then:

If the founding fathers
A) were still alive, today, and
B) Spoke against the Constitutionality (as opposed to the justifiableness) of Obamacare, THEY'D BE F*CKING WRONG!

Whether or not Obamacare SHOULD be on the books is a matter of political opinion, but to say that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL is a matter of legal fact.

 

[DontDoIt]

The one judge that holds it constitutional merely persuades you to follow his beliefs ehh? What about the multiple judges that have ruled it unconstitutional?

As for the old comparison between auto and health insurance being mandatory to buy, it's different. When you hit someone, you should be liable, not in any way the same concept as health care, which applies to yourself, and you're family at the most. Otherwise I would get out my old junk car and go around trashing anyones car that I didn't like.

 

[OhReally?]

The one judge that holds it constitutional merely persuades you to follow his beliefs ehh? What about the multiple judges that have ruled it unconstitutional?

As for the old comparison between auto and health insurance being mandatory to buy, it's different. When you hit someone, you should be liable, not in any way the same concept as health care, which applies to yourself, and you're family at the most. Otherwise I would get out my old junk car and go around trashing anyones car that I didn't like.

Currently there is a circuit split with two Federal District court judges finding it Constitutional and two finding it unConstitutional. So to suggest there is overwhelming judicial support on one side of the issue is misleading.

The problem with health care, is that when people do not buy insurance they force the rates for insurance and costs for treatment to go up for all. So one person's decision does impact the others ability to get service.

 

[Badmutha]

Fine, I'll go ahead and say it, then:

If the founding fathers
A) were still alive, today, and
B) Spoke against the Constitutionality (as opposed to the justifiableness) of Obamacare, THEY'D BE F*CKING WRONG!

Whether or not Obamacare SHOULD be on the books is a matter of political opinion, but to say that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL is a matter of legal fact.

The author of The Constitution just told you it is Unconstitutional...........

"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

Saying ObamaCare is Constitutional is to say Government can do whatever it wants.......and the Constitution is the DNC toilet paper that it is.

it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased


..
.
.
.

 

[middleagedgamer]

As for the old comparison between auto and health insurance being mandatory to buy, it's different. When you hit someone, you should be liable, not in any way the same concept as health care, which applies to yourself, and you're family at the most.

No, it's not JUST you and your family. It's also the doctor. You're entering into a contract with the doctor, and he's entitled to be paid in accordance with the contract. If you can't pay him, he's been injured.

Currently there is a circuit split with two Federal District court judges finding it Constitutional and two finding it unConstitutional. So to suggest there is overwhelming judicial support on one side of the issue is misleading.

It's not misleading. It's straight-up BS.

That's like saying "I'll sell you this car for a hundred bucks," and then, when you pay him the money, he gives you a hamburger, and says "Sorry, I admit I was being a bit misleading! My bad!"

The problem with health care, is that when people do not buy insurance they force the rates for insurance and costs for treatment to go up for all. So one person's decision does impact the others ability to get service.

And that's what I'm talking about! There's your rational basis!

The author of The Constitution just told you it is Unconstitutional.

Well the other(s) of the Constitution are ****ING WRONG about the current interpretation of it!

Saying ObamaCare is Constitutional is to say Government can do whatever it wants.......and the Constitution is the DNC toilet paper that it is.

No, they can't do "whatever it wants." They can't restrict free speech unless it can pass strict scrutiny.
They can't search your property without a search warrant.
They can't force you to testify against yourself.
They can't force you to give them your property without just compensation.
They can't sentence you to death for shoplifting a loaf of bread.
They can't ban Islamic worship.

There's a lot of things they can't do, just because ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

 

[Objective Voice]

Basically, you're doing a good job of illustrating the amount of control the government could gain over your life if Obamacare is upheld.

But it's not about control. It's about: 1) people taking responsibility for themselves when they can afford to do so where health insurance is concerned; and, 2) making a first-step attempt to control the cost of health care. I know alot of people don't think the PPACA goes far enough in the endeavour, but right now the primary methodology the health care system uses to keep costs low is allowing "group" plans. As such, by that logic the more people become part of group plans the lower the overall cost to private citizens, businesses large and small and to the states (Medicaid) and the federal government (Medicaid, Medicare and tax subsidies to private health care premiums). The rational basis for the federal (and state) government is reduced cost to the U.S. Treasury. The rational basis for citizens should be reduced medical costs across the board. Except for hospitals, I'm not sure if there is one for private businesses at this point considering most large corporations already receive a tax subsidy for the health care premiums they pay to provide insurance to their employees.

But to reiterate: the PPACA does mandate that everyone who can afford to buy health insurance do so. But if you already have health insurance either via your employer, Medicare, Medicaid or a health savings account or you receive a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, I really don't see where the problem is. Take personal responsibility for yourself and your loved ones and just get some kind of health insurance and you won't have anything to worry about.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States....not the united individuals...not the people...not cats in a hat...the United States. In other words, they are supposed to collect taxes so they can pay to run the government. That's it. NO more. There is no implied unending power that, if you can just justify it by saying you think it will help, then the government can do it. That doesn't exist. What's the point of having a Constitution if it gives unlimited power?

 

[middleagedgamer]

The Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States....not the united individuals...not the people...not cats in a hat...the United States. In other words, they are supposed to collect taxes so they can pay to run the government. That's it. NO more.

Look elsewhere in the Constitution. Their purpose of promoting the general welfare, in general, is in the Preamble.

There is no implied unending power that, if you can just justify it by saying you think it will help, then the government can do it. That doesn't exist. What's the point of having a Constitution if it gives unlimited power?

There ARE limits. This is not one of them.

 

[DontDoIt]

Currently there is a circuit split with two Federal District court judges finding it Constitutional and two finding it unConstitutional. So to suggest there is overwhelming judicial support on one side of the issue is misleading.

The problem with health care, is that when people do not buy insurance they force the rates for insurance and costs for treatment to go up for all. So one person's decision does impact the others ability to get service.

I was not sure on the number of judges exactly in which favored for it and against it, I just knew at least 2 were against it, I hadn't heard of the 2 that upheld it, I guess it just depends on what political affiliation the judge is influenced by unfortunately. If you haven't watched Obama's interview with O'Reilly before the superbowl go check it out, he claims that it has been upheld 12 times, which is yet just another misconceiving statement our president has address to the public. You would think as a former Harvard Law graduate/professor he could at least tell the truth when it comes to a matter of law.

I do agree that the second part of your statement needs to be changed. There needs to be a distinguishable difference between people with insurance and people without, people shouldn't be penalized for having it just because someone else doesn't.

 

[Badmutha]

Look elsewhere in the Constitution. Their purpose of promoting the general welfare, in general, is in the Preamble.

And the Forefathers just told you what was and wasnt meant by it..........

.......and still you insist on your interpretation rather than the Authors'..............

There ARE limits. This is not one of them.

So Government can control every aspect of your health care, and you still believe there are "Limits".......

.....perhaps government should outlaw donuts to promote the General Welfare.......perhaps Government should mandate every American eats 5 servings of Brocolli a day to promote the General Welfare.......perhaps Government should mandate you excercise 5 hours per day......

.......or perhaps you should realize that Freedom and Liberty have nothing in common with your contentions....or the Democrat Party.


it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased

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

.....is right there in black and white not good enough for you?
.
.
.

 

[OhReally?]

I was not sure on the number of judges exactly in which favored for it and against it, I just knew at least 2 were against it, I hadn't heard of the 2 that upheld it, I guess it just depends on what political affiliation the judge is influenced by unfortunately. If you haven't watched Obama's interview with O'Reilly before the superbowl go check it out, he claims that it has been upheld 12 times, which is yet just another misconceiving statement our president has address to the public. You would think as a former Harvard Law graduate/professor he could at least tell the truth when it comes to a matter of law.

I do agree that the second part of your statement needs to be changed. There needs to be a distinguishable difference between people with insurance and people without, people shouldn't be penalized for having it just because someone else doesn't.

Unfortunately, the two are fundamentally link. You cannot disassociate them. That is why I am not suggesting that the law is Constitutional or not. It seems to me that there are legitimate arguments on both sides simply because of the nature of the health industry.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Look elsewhere in the Constitution. Their purpose of promoting the general welfare, in general, is in the Preamble.

Ok, so who in the government is granted powers via the preamble? The answer is nobody. It may suprise you, but the very definition of the word preamble precludes it giving power. The preamble is an introduction. It sets the goals, but does not define how. So when you read the Constitution of the United States, the powers granted to Congress are not enhanced by the preamble, but limited by it. This means, as Congress composes bills to become laws, they must measure those bills, first by the delegated power in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and then by the over all goals set forth in the Preamble.

There ARE limits. This is not one of them.

If this is not one of them, then what is?