Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional

[Far right dem]

Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional | The Nation

 

[Jredbaron96]

I can see the flames already...

 

[ARealConservative]

If it is legal because it is a tax, then Obama is a liar who is going to break his promise on raising taxes.

 

[jambalaya]

I care less about the legality and more about the structure of the system which I think is terrible.

 

[minnie616]

The individual mandate is needed and I also think the Supreme Court will declare it legal.
As the article points out everyone should have to buy health insurance given the inevitability that we will all need healthcare.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

If it is legal because it is a tax, then Obama is a liar who is going to break his promise on raising taxes.

According to right-wingers, he did that already when he signed the S-CHIP expansion, even though he campaigned on a promise to sign it.

Meanwhile, so long as the Court is a little more awake and alert than it was in deciding Citizens United, PPACA will be upheld by a lopsided margin.

 

[TurtleDude]

If the mandate is upheld then the Tenth amendment means nothing and congress can do anything it wants

Liberals love that idea

 

[Harshaw]

If it's a tax, then it originated in the Senate, and that's unconstitutional.

So any way you slice it, it's unconstitutional.

Besides, the gist of the article is "we really, really need this, so that makes it constitutional."

 

[Thunder]

requiring Americans to buy **** from corporations, is a pretty ****ty way of getting universal health coverage.

Obama is a fool for dropping the govt. option and the non-profit option.

 

[Neomalthusian]

First paragraph of the article:

What is at stake in the case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court in March? The challengers maintain that the case is about fundamental liberty, specifically our freedom not to be compelled to purchase things we don’t want. But that frame, while undoubtedly appealing to the radical libertarian strain in the Tea Party, is misleading. In fact, the only “liberty” that would be protected by a victory for the challengers is the freedom of insurance companies to discriminate against sick people.

Off to a roaring start.

1) "Liberty" does not need to be between quotation marks as though it's some farcical notion.
2) There is no good reason to allege that freedom not to be compelled to purchase something (from a private company) only appeals "to the radical libertarian strain in the Tea Party." WTF?
3) Insurance providers aren't "discriminating" against people who are trying to "insure" themselves against something that already happened to them. That's because such are people are not actually seeking insurance. They're seeking for a company to pay their medical bills.

And that's just the first paragraph.

I was a bit amazed that the author proudly volunteered Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich as points of comparison, which are cases that boggle the minds of most people to whom I've brought them up--even liberals--in terms of Congress' and the Court's anything-goes view of the Commerce Clause. If it feels like it, there will be some butterfly effect rationalization relating the issue back to regulation of interstate commerce.

I'd like the author (or anyone defending him, for that matter) to think of something Congress could NOT be justified in regulating as part of interstate commerce. For example, because fetuses would grow into babies and then humans who would ultimately engage in and/or affect interstate commerce, Congress should regulate abortions. Sounds fantastic. Perhaps because my wife and I are not planning on having kids, but doing so would ultimately affect demand for goods and services sold across state lines, maybe the government can compel us to have children. Why not?

This isn't a slippery slope fallacy. It's a ****ing real life slippery slope. The Court can decide whatever the **** it wants. It can make the law, just as Sotomayor said. Toss issues down the semantic rabbit hole and give whatever meaning it wants to words that were supposed to limit the Federal Government's powers. If our government can coerce us to destroy our own property that we created (citing that it theoretically impacts demand for something that is traded by others), and can coerce us to purchase goods or services from private companies, then really, what couldn't it do?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

If the mandate is upheld then the Tenth amendment means nothing and congress can do anything it wants Liberals love that idea

So did the founders. That's why the Constitution reads as it deos. Like many America-hating sociophobes, you deny the Constitution under the pretense of upholding it.

 

[a351]

So did the founders. That's why the Constitution reads as it deos. Like many America-hating sociophobes, you deny the Constitution under the pretense of upholding it.

America hating? That's a silly generalization, I and many others simply don't like the idea of the federal government having the ability to force commerce upon private citizens.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

If it's a tax, then it originated in the Senate, and that's unconstitutional. So any way you slice it, it's unconstitutional.

Ignorant grasping at straws. The Senate bill was passed as an amendment to H.R. 3590, which was then re-passed by the House in its amended form. You lose.

Besides, the gist of the article is "we really, really need this, so that makes it constitutional."

No, the gist of the article is that either the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause justifies the bill as passed. When you wish upon a star, the usual thing that happens is nothing at all.

 

[TurtleDude]

So did the founders. That's why the Constitution reads as it deos. Like many America-hating sociophobes, you deny the Constitution under the pretense of upholding it.

LOL its the socialist scum that hates America and your reading of the Constitution is based on trustafarian anti freedom nonsense

 

[TurtleDude]

America hating? That's a silly generalization, I and many others simply don't like the idea of the federal government having the ability to force commerce upon private citizens.

the commerce clause was included so as to prevent any of the several states from impeding commerce inter-state.

Not to give congress a carte blanche to regulate stuff like individuals buying guns or growing wheat etc

 

[Cardinal Fang]

requiring Americans to buy **** from corporations, is a pretty ****ty way of getting universal health coverage. Obama is a fool for dropping the govt. option and the non-profit option.

You are required to pay taxes. Taxes are used to buy things from corporations. Your purchases from some corporations are tax deductible.

In an era of wall-to-wall Republican obstructionism, you can only pass what you can get 60 votes for in the Senate. For a while, it looked like 60 votes for a weak public option would be possible, but that turned out not to be the case. There is too much that is good in the bill to risk losing it over something else that would be good not being in the bill.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are required to pay taxes. Taxes are used to buy things from corporations. Your purchases from some corporations are tax deductible.

In an era of wall-to-wall Republican obstructionism, you can only pass what you can get 60 votes for in the Senate. For a while, it looked like 60 votes for a weak public option would be possible, but that turned out not to be the case. There is too much that is good in the bill to risk losing it over something else that would be good not being in the bill.

wall to wall republican obstructionism==far left hackery.

the bill is a mess and its more income redistribution nonsense. Congress doesn't have the proper power to impose this crap

 

[haymarket]

wall to wall republican obstructionism==far left hackery.

the bill is a mess and its more income redistribution nonsense. Congress doesn't have the proper power to impose this crap

Actually wall to wall republican obstructionism is evidence of far right hackery.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

First paragraph of the article: Off to a roaring start.
1) "Liberty" does not need to be between quotation marks as though it's some farcical notion.

It does indeed when the notion of "liberty" being discussed is the farcical distortion of it held to by anti-social, responsibility-shirking, right-wing extremists.

2) There is no good reason to allege that freedom not to be compelled to purchase something (from a private company) only appeals "to the radical libertarian strain in the Tea Party." WTF?

True, for some radical libertarian strains, even the Tea Party is too much some socialistic combine out to crush the individual.

3) Insurance providers aren't "discriminating" against people who are trying to "insure" themselves against something that already happened to them. That's because such are people are not actually seeking insurance. They're seeking for a company to pay their medical bills.

That's right. Health insurance is for the healthy. Others need not apply and will have their policies cancelled and claims denied should they once have been healthy but later become ill. Could be a threat to profits to do otheriwse.

And that's just the first paragraph.

Which you did nothing to compromise.

I was a bit amazed that the author proudly volunteered Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich as points of comparison, which are cases that boggle the minds of most people...

Most people have no comprehension of Constitutional law at all. You cannot engage in activity that will undermine a legitimate federal regulatory scheme, even if your action in isolation seems not to affect the prospects of that scheme at all. These two cases were not about harm done by Filburn or Raich. They were about the harm potentially done by groups that Filburn and Raich were representative of and who would have been loosed to action had the decisions gone in their favor.

If it feels like it, there will be some butterfly effect rationalization relating the issue back to regulation of interstate commerce.

Don't forget the general welfare clause. Congress is empowered to act as it sees fit with regard to either, and via the necessary and proper clause, to enact legislation to carry such acts into execution. Why do you think the founders put all that language in there anyway? Congress needs only a rational basis for belief that such schemes are necessary so long as those schemes themselves do not breach a protected right. That last bit is why right-wingers scurry about in such desperate search of some protected right that that they can claim is being breached -- such as the imaginary right not to be compelled to purchase things from private corporations. All that is nothing more than an argument that PPACA must be unconstitutional simply because we don't have it already.

 

[haymarket]

from Cardinal Fang

It does indeed when the notion of "liberty" being discussed is the farcical distortion of it held to by anti-social, responsibility-shirking, right-wing extremists.

far to many right wing libertarians use the word LIBERTY the way a horny lounge lizard uses the word LOVE just before the bar is getting ready to close for the long and lonely night ahead. And their goal in both cases is exactly the same.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

America hating? That's a silly generalization...

You've misconstrued the post. It's about the notion of Congress being able to do and enforce what it wants, a notion of collective action that the founders in light of their own then recent experiences took considerable care to craft in an open-ended manner and then record in Article I. That power is and has always been part of the essence of this American government. Those whose ignorance and selfishness are so out of control as to prevent their abiding it may indeed be characterized as haters of America.

I and many others simply don't like the idea of the federal government having the ability to force commerce upon private citizens.

Have you been out protesting against federal laws that force commerce against their wishes upon private citizens who happen to be lunch-counter operators with respect to certain persons who may walk in and sit down at them?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

LOL its the socialist scum that hates America and your reading of the Constitution is based on trustafarian anti freedom nonsense

Hmmm. Another fact- and reason-free response. Just more testimony suggesting an inability to control one's own emotions.

 

[Thrilla]

Have you been out protesting against federal laws that force commerce against their wishes upon private citizens who happen to be lunch-counter operators with respect to certain persons who may walk in and sit down at them?

we have a federal law that mandates that minorities must eat lunch at a restaurant or face penalties?... wow!.... where do i sign up to protest that law?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

the commerce clause was included so as to prevent any of the several states from impeding commerce inter-state.

Maybe read something about the origins of the Constitution sometime. The Commerce Clause was not present in the Articles of Confederation and arose as a means of enforcing collective action upon the states and preventing exactly the sort of free-rider shenanigans that opponents of HCR seek to engage in today.

Not to give congress a carte blanche to regulate stuff like individuals buying guns or growing wheat etc

The power extends to the limits of any rational basis that does not substantially compromise protected rights. The right to bear arms is such a right. The right to grow wheat is not.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

wall to wall republican obstructionism==far left hackery. the bill is a mess and its more income redistribution nonsense. Congress doesn't have the proper power to impose this crap

LOL! The basis of your claims to date in this thread is exactly nothing but your own uninspired rant, and you want to complain about hackery?