Texas gun case cited in healthcare suit

[onehandle]

Source: UPI

HOUSTON, April 4 (UPI) -- U.S. state attorneys general challenging the new healthcare law will use a 1995 Supreme Court decision in a gun case as a central argument, experts say. In a lawsuit challenging the law's mandate that everyone must have health insurance, the 13 state attorneys general, including Gregg Abbot of Texas, cite the court's ruling in a Texas gun possession case in their arguments, The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

A Texas high school student was convicted for bringing a gun onto campus in 1992, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 1995, saying Congress exceeded its constitutional regulatory authority when it approved the 1990 law banning firearms in a school zone, the newspaper said.

The Constitution's commerce clause limits the regulatory powers of Congress to matters involving interstate commerce. In the Texas case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1990 gun law was unconstitutional because it had nothing to do with commerce between states.

The attorneys general argue healthcare does not meet the legal definition of interstate commerce, so the congressional mandate that all Americans must purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/04/Texas-gun-case-cited-in-healthcare-suit/UPI-28021270408240/

---

Guns are like the Swiss Army Knife of the right-wing reasoning on all subjects.

[Bitwit1234]

1. So the states can require that everyone who drives a car should

have a license, but they don't want the federal government to tell people they should be required to have health insurance. Which would protect them and other people from getting sick because of them.

States can require a license to carry a gun, wear seatbelts, etc. I suppose they think they have command over every one but the government shouldn't.

[paulsby]

2. this is a stupid analogy

whatever one feels about the HCR bill

first of all, states are not the federal govt.

so, on that point it's already an illogical analogy.

the argument was about limitations on the FEDERAL govt.

many things the federal govt. is limited from doing, CAN be (and are) done by state govt's

second of all, states only require those who drive a car on public roadways have insurance, and even that is not true in many cases (for example, people who can show they are bonded are not required . iow, they are self insured)

but driving on a public roadway is a voluntary activity. the state does NOT say you must purchase private insurance. the state says IF you drive on a public roadway, you must purchase private insurance. iow, if you engage in this particular activity.

the HCR bill has no such distinction. it doesn't say "if you skydive, you need to purchase insurance".

it says YOU NEED to purchase insurance

i support the HCR bill. i do not support specious analogies

hth

[RantinRavin]

3. That is pretty much what the 10th amendment says.

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

[droidamus2]

5. What some don't understand is

When the 'powers that be' at the time created the 10th amendment they knew they were in a 'catch 22' situation. If they tried to enumerate all the specific powers the federal government would have and all that would remain with the states they would surly leave some or cause massive arguing over where which power belonged. If they didn't enumerate them they could still end up with the same problem. Therefore, they created a more general amendment and left it up to Congress and the courts to determine which is which on a case by case basis. With past interpretations of the interstate commerce clause this obviously brings up a lot of flexibility in the courts especially if you have justices that are more interested in supporting a political position rather than following precedents (yes I know that there is no reason to follow bad precedents). I am a universal coverage/single payer person myself and don't think making insurance mandatory is a great idea.

[No Elephants]

13. Yes, but the Constitutution granted Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

After FDR announced his so-called Court-packing plan, the SCOTUS held that growing vegetables by yourself on your own land for your own consumption affected interstate commerce and therefore was subject to Congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause So, the gun case was not in the mainstream of settled Tenth Amendment/Commerce Clause Law, as it has stood for almost a century.

I wonder what the SCOTUS would have decided if the case had been about spitting in a school zone, instead of about toting a gun in a school zone.

[Riftaxe]

6. you don't see the difference between voluntarily driving a

car, and being alive? really?

[X_Digger]

8. Hence the ninth and tenth amendments..

The federal government is limited by the constitution, which sets out which powers belong to the fed. Some of them stretch like taffy (interstate commerce). Those powers not assigned to the fed, fall to the states. Just because a state can regulate something doesn't automatically mean that the fed can. (by design.) Luckily in this case, it's not a real stretch to claim that health care reform falls under the umbrella of interstate commerce.

ninth- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

tenth- "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."

[No Elephants]

14. Please see Reply #13.

[Lagomorph]

11. That's the whole idea.

Within their borders, the states have authority, except where the law contradicts their Constitutional limits.

In most cases, where the Federal government can't force states to comply with federal mandates, they simply withhold funding.

As the Tenth Amendment states: "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."

Another question would be, "Does the Federal government have the right to force you to buy a product from a private enterprise?"

[Rex]

4. The argument that so and so politican loves states rights or rights of the feds

is pure bunk...they shift in the wind depending on what they think will win them the most votes. True, Congress should not exced the authority given to it by the Constitution; the SCOTUS should practice what they preach - 2000 is a textbook example of that.

[X_Digger]

7. Weak soup..

.. the link between interstate commerce and schools was tenuous. The link between health care providers and interstate commerce is not. The subject matter of the cited case was irrelevant, it was the argument presented re health care's impact on interstate commerce that was valid (as precedent, not on merits). Take the phobic gun goggles off.

fyi, the SCOTUS case was US v Lopez.

[happyslug]

9. Why not use article I?? Sections 8 and 9?

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to tax, and this is the power that permits Congress to collect the Social Security TAX to run the Social Security program.

The First Paragraph of Article 1, Section 9 reads as follows:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

You can make the argument that the above FORBIDS Congress requiring US Citizens to pay private insurance company for health care. Section 8 says congress can TAX, but does NOT say Congress can delegate that power to a private company. Furthermore Article 9 clearly points out any tax collected MUST be "appropriations" made by law. Together the above can be viewed as FORBIDDING what congress has done in regards to mandatory coverage i.e. how can Congress "appropriatr by law" money that NEVER went to the treasury? Can congress force people to pay a fee (Which is nothing but a tax) to a third party, when that third party can spend that money as it sees fit WITHOUT "any Appropriations made by Law" AND without "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time"?

That is how I would attack this heath bill, but attacking the requirement for MANDATED Coverage. Now, if you want to look at Insurance, lets point out two things, first that is a STATE BY STATE Requirement NOT a Federal Requirement. Second, you do NOT need Auto Insurance unless you want to drive on the Public road, if you want to take the bus, ride a bicycle or even walk down the street you do NOT need Auto Insurance. It may be impossible to live in the US without an automobile, but no law makes that a requirement. Thus driving an automobile on a public road can be restricted to include insurance do to the vary nature of Automobile and the damage they can do given their speed and size. Automobiles did NOT exist under the Common law and the US Supreme Court has long upheld the Freedom of Movement, even if the only way to exercise that freedom is by foot (i.e. can not cut off foot traffic from any road where such foot traffic has ever been legal UNLESS a reasonable alternative exists at the same cost as moving by foot (i.e. Free). Thus you can still exercise your freedom of movement without having to buy auto Insurance by walking on any major highway.

Just pointing out the best attack is to say the Federal Government can NOT require people to pay a third party, for the only people who can make such a requirement is CONGRESS who then MUST release that money through annual budgets, as had been the practice since 1787. As to the argument that Congress can make such a requirement for Congress is doing what the States have been doing as to Auto Insurance for decades is NOT the same. The difference is that no state requires EVERYONE to have auto insurance, just those people who operate Automobiles on public roads. In this case Congress is requiring EVERYONE to have insurance, even if they never use it OR ever go to a Doctor. It is different it that they is no way anyone can avoid paying this fee AND still live in the US. When it comes to Auto Insurance, you can avoid paying it by never owning a car, you can still get to work, by walking for example or taking a bike. On the other hand as to this mandate they is no way to avoid it AND still be an active person in the American Economy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Its arguably relevant, and merits consdieration

HCR is a really big deal, sweeping and far reaching. It needs a solid judicial review to validate its legality. It was coming, one way or the other, so lets get it over with. I believe it is likely that there will be some legal issues found (due to its size and complexity if nothing else) so we should also plan on making some changes that may be required by the courts. Not a big deal, its the way the system works, so lets get on with it.

[boppers]

12. People move between states. Guns do not.

I forget the case, it was the frog thing, I think, where things that spanned states were interstate, but inanimate objects did not... any clues?

That being said, I can see a Slaughterhouse case in the works and that would change things.... drastically.

[No Elephants]

15. I'm not sure why the states have standing to bring a lawsuit. I would think

that the suit could be brought only by someone who has no health insurance, but is required to buy private health insurance or pay an extra tax--and only after the law requires him or her to do so. And, I would think the argument would be the Due Process clause, not the commerce clause--but what do I know?

For those who want to do more than one line posts, according to wiki, the Rehnquist Court that decided U.S. v Lopez (the Texas gun case mentioned in the OP) looked to four factors:

"The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:

Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity.
Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.
Whether there had been Congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education.
How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I don't know whether all four factors have to be satisfied, or whether the Court found only those four factors relevant.

BTW, U.S. v. Lopez was a 5-4 decision, handed down several years before Columbine.