So 9 states are going to challenge the HCR legislation saying it is unConstitutional. Aren't they

[still_one]

also saying that Social Security and Medicare are also unConstitutional?

[ixion]

1. Neither SS nor Medicare mandate the purchase of a private, for-profit product

from a corrupt industry.

I'm not really a fan of SS, but there's a difference between this and mandated insurance.

[democrat_patriot]

2. So....car insurance than?

That is unconstitutional?

[galileoreloaded]

4. No, you dont have to drive. n/t

[WeekendWarrior]

18. God, I am so tired of that nonsense.

In the real world, MOST of us DO have to drive. That's like saying "yeah, and you can eat healthy and not get sick."

It's a Republican talking point, if you ask me.

[Statistical]

22. It is not. Nobody said it is easy. You don't have a right to easy choices.

You do have choices though.

You could move to another city. Lots of major cities have decent public transit. You may not want to move but you have choice. You can also call upon your elected officials to improve public transit. It may be a hard fight but nobody said the choice would be wasy.

Lastly you could find a resident/employment combination that is close enough to ride a bike or carpool (or using existing limited public transit). You have choices. They may be tough choices but you have choices.

Will 99% of Americans choose the easy route (car)? Sure but that isn't the point. The choice is available.

Unlike your "eat healthy and not get sick" that ISN'T choice. You are still FORCED absolutely with no exceptions to get insurance.

[Beetwasher]

43. Well, It's A Good Thing This Legislation GIVES YOU A CHOICE

Buy insurance either from a private company OR a non-profit OR pay the tax. Sounds like a choice to me.

[Statistical]

49. So would forcing everyone to own a car ot pay penalty tax for not owning one.

In your book that is Constitutional.
Buy a new car every 5 years or pay a $20,000 tax/fine.

Would a tax on being gay also be Constitutional?
Be straight or pay $10,000 tax each year. Your have the choice. Nobody is saying to not be gay you can always pay the tax.

The mandate is Unconstitutional. Federal govt has no authority to force individuals to buy a product from a 3rd party.

It is no more constitutional than forcing every American to buy 10 CD a year to avoid piracy.

[Beetwasher]

51. If Congress Passed That Law, Guess What?

It wouldn't be unconsitutional any more than everyone paying into SS and Medicare.

Taxes are totally constitutional.

Try moving your goalposts a bit more.

[Statistical]

55. The sad thing is you don't even realize how dangerous that precedent is.

If corporations can lobby to have Congress mandate purchase of products/services than they will do so.

Profits down. Just mandate people buy our product.

By your logic
Mandated Health Insurance
Mandated Car Purchases
Mandated CD/Music/Movie Purchases

are all Constitutional.

The govt can force us (under penalty of tax/fine) to buy whatever the corporate masters say we must buy.

Given that corporations now have ability to spend unlimited amounts of money getting elected officials they own into office you can't see the "hidden" danger here?

Maybe it is Constitutional but I support any challenge via the courts to find out before I roll over and have my purchases dictated to me under penalty of the IRS.

[Beetwasher]

57. SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE

Put up.

You ignore that fact that you don't have to buy insurance. You can pay a tax. You keep ignoring that because it blows your already weak argument completely out of the water. :rofl:

But keep moving those goalposts!

[Statistical]

62. Mandated (INSERT PRODUCT) OR fine/tax.

I clearly stated that in my post.

You see absolutely nothing wrong with corporate interests having Congress mandate purchases under penalty of tax/fine?

[Beetwasher]

64. But That's Bullshit Since You Can PAY A TAX Instead Of Buying Insurance

Keep moving those goalposts!

So, you are NOT mandated to buy insurance from a private company.

Are taxes unconstitutional?

[Statistical]

66. Taxes are not Unconstitutional. A tax as penalty for not buying product corp interest want IS.

Taxes for universal coverage would not be Unconstitutional.

In a universal coverage system the plan would be controlled by the people (not the Board of directors at Cigna).

[Beetwasher]

68. Ah, So NOW We're Back To Unconstitutional, And That's Right! You Need To PUT UP

Show me the language! :rofl:

You can't. You have provided not even a single word from the constitution to back up your bullshit.

[Statistical]

73. I can't help you if you have never read the Constitution.

The CONSTITUTION DOESN'T LIST PROHIBITIONS BY THE FEDERAL GOVT.

It expressly lists the ONLY powers the federal govt has. EVERYTHING else by default is reserved to the states and the people.

Can you imagine how long (millions of pages) the Constitution would need to be to list every single prohibition on federal power.

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. - 10th Amendment to United States Constitution

So maybe your smiley should stop rolling on the floor and start reading.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

122. If Only You Understood What You Read

The Bill Of Rights are explicit in prohibiting the federal gov't from doing things "congress shall pass no law..."

You need to brush up on your constitution.

[newtothegame]

167. Wow. Cheerlead much?

Lemme guess. This is the background on your computer:



And you're just dying to know what the next brilliant move is in the intergalactic chess game, right?

PS He's so cute!!

[Beetwasher]

171. Have Anything Besides Epitaphs?

Oh, excuse me, I was talking to you in language you'd understand, you know "Karl Rove" speak. For those following at home, it's epithets.

[newtothegame]

173. Love you :)

Warm hugs and kisses,
newtothegame

[Beetwasher]

174. Aww, Thanks Cupcake

Now I have to go throw up.

[stopbush]

133. That's a bullshit argument. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes.

Paying a penalty for not buying insurance is just such a tax. In fact, it is a tax levied to "insure the common good" by collecting monies from everybody, monies that are targeted at all Americans having health insurance.

Congress passed the income tax. If you earn an income, you pay taxes on it. Using your car insurance example, you can avoid paying income taxes by choosing not to earn an income. It's so simple, isn't it?

You're hung up on the word insurance, yet the fed/state/local taxes we normally pay without question are insurances that our roads will be maintained and our water supply will be clean etc. We just don't call them insurances. We call them public services/utilities. And that's what health care should be in this country, a public service/utility that is not based on a for-profit model. And the only way that will work is if everybody pays into the system.

[Statistical]

135. I agree "a public service/utility that is not based on a for-profit"

however that is not what is being discussed.

I would have no problem paying $10,000 more per year in taxes if we had single payer.
I would have no problem with a mandate if we had a public option.

The funds would go to the public good.

A mandate combined with provide insurance means funds go to the betterment of shareholders. They get richer with public dollars. The mandate drives funds (and profit) their way. Even worse the subsidies are a direct transfer of wealth from public sector into private companies.

It is like the bank bailouts but instead of one massive check (TARP) it will be a slow bleed of a trillion a decade. Either way the wealth will be transferred to shareholders NOT the common good.

[stopbush]

142. I agree with you. But I believe that this HCR is the first step on the road to

single payer. It was important to break the log jam, but now that HCR has been passed into law, further tweaks shouldn't be as difficult to achieve. In fact, I predict that many small biz owners will begin clamoring for single payer in the near future. it would relieve them of a great expense and would be better for their employees as well.

You see this as a giveaway to the insurance companies. I see it as the first nail in their corporate coffins.

Patience.

[Statistical]

144. If you are right then it is worth it however I just don't have that kind of faith.

Then is no guarantee that control over Congress and/or Whitehouse won't change in the future.
IMHO Obama has the personal appeal to get re-elected but Congress is far more vulnerable.
That "next step" could be a decade from now.

I hope I am wrong.

[derby378]

78. A fine, not a tax

In other words, you'd be charged with a criminal act, even if it's a minor one.

[Beetwasher]

82. You Have A Choice

You are not being forced to buy insurance.

[mvd]

85. What people are saying is that it's not much of a choice there

Buy or pay a tax/fine. I don't know if it's unconstitutional, but the mandate is something we need to fix IMO.

[laughingliberal]

107. It's not much of a choice, is it?

We do need to fix it. I don't know if the bill will pass constitutional muster or not. Regardless, we need to keep working for all those improvements we've hear will be made. We need to get a public option. But, there are some here who will benefit greatly from mandated coverage without a public option.

[Beetwasher]

116. If It Does Not Violate The Constitution, And It Doesn't, It's Not Unconstitutional

n/t

[mvd]

118. That's up for debate.

I was basically saying the mandate is not the right way to go - not saying it is constitutional or not.

[Beetwasher]

119. Not Really

I have yet to see a single person give me anything at all to back up the bullshit assertion that it's unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional just because people scream it loudly.

It actually has to violate the constitution somehow.

I have yet to see anyone provide a single shred of evidence of anything in the constitution that is violated by this legislation.

If a law is passed making it illegal for black people to vote, I can easily point to how it violates the 14th ammendment.

[mvd]

120. Debate it, but there are too many personal attacks here on both sides

Makes more work for us mods.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. No you don't have to drive.

You can carpool. Pubic transportation. Cabs. Bike...
I lived in Cleveland for 4+ years and didn't need a car.

That you live so far away from your "life" and necessities is your personal choice.
Millions (literally) of Americans live without ever having to drive a car, let alone owning one.
Like many other things, you only need insurance/registration to operate them on public roads.

[democrat_patriot]

36. I have to drive.

I don't live near work.

There aren't zoned areas for residential living near my work (within 30 miles).

So I am FORCED to buy car insurance in order to make it to work.

just sayin'.....

[ellenfl]

87. without public transportation, a car is a necessity.

florida has a very weak public transportation system and is mostly rural, not urban. the whole state is almost one big metropolis, unlike the states which have separate major metropolitan areas. the municipalities in south florida run together from miami to melbourne.

ellen fl

[laughingliberal]

108. The lack of car would greatly affect your lifestyle. The lack of a body is, by definition, death. nt

[ellenfl]

146. apparently, you missed my point. eom

[Statistical]

9. If you were forced to buy a car and then insure it that would be comparable.

You can choose to not own a car.
Or you can choose to not register your vehicle and keep it on your private property.

You can't choose to not be alive and thus are subject to this universal mandate.

[Beetwasher]

39. You Can Opt To Pay The Tax

You don't have to buy insurance.

[951-Riverside]

63. I guess that makes it all better then.

:eyes: ...not much of an option. IMO.

[Beetwasher]

65. Yes, In Fact, It Does

That's what makes it possible to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions and not have them pay exhorbitant rates and be discriminated against.

Maybe those people should go fuck themselves?

[951-Riverside]

72. Instead of using the government to force everyone to buy private insurance

...Just make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and also make it illegal for them to terminate clients who have paid for their insurance.

If they can pass and renew the patriot act they can pass this.

[Beetwasher]

76. Umm, They Just Did That

And you can't do that unless everyone pays into the system.

[951-Riverside]

86. Re: "You can't do that unless everyone pays into the system."

...Why not?

[Beetwasher]

91. Someone Has To Pay

Do you think it comes free? So, like SS, EVERYONE has to pay or it doesn't work.

[high density]

80. Hold on. The argument here is that everybody is being forced to buy something from private companies

You can opt to pay the tax to Uncle Sam instead. So that's the option: Buy it or pay the tax.

[Statistical]

92. You can buy marijuana too.

You may be forced by Uncle Sam to spend some time in a jail cell or pay a fine.
By that logic you have a "choice" right?

You have the choice to exceed the speed limit also. If you get caught you will be fined. So there really is no such thing as a speed limit. It is a choice?

So if we outlawed abortion women would still have a "choice" to pay the penalty for non-compliance?

It isn't a choice when you are told to do it or face a penalty. If we start defining choice as you can take an action but then you suffer a penalty under the law well that really isn't liberty any more. People in Soviet Union has the "choice" to speak out against the govt.

[high density]

104. It seems the ultimate issue is

that people usually do not have a "choice" to opt out of medical care when they need it. If an uninsured person is severely injured or ill, they will be brought to a hospital and somebody will pay for it. Currently that "somebody" is usually the insured pool. The idea here is to persuade people to purchase insurance, or at least build up a fund that can offset these costs when expensive services for the uninsured are performed.

Having said that, don't confuse the initial argument here claiming that people are being forced to buy from a private company. They are being persuaded to do so, just as speeding fines persuade people to not speed. If people choose to speed they can pay a fine. If people choose to go without insurance they can pay a fine.

[Statistical]

115. Agreed it isn't black and white.

Still for the govt to impose a fine they need delegated power to do so.

The most likely (only) place that power comes from is Commerce Clause.

Don't get me wrong I think the States will ultimately lose for the argument you make. Lack of insurance in this country does not equal lack of care and as such Commerce is already occurring.

As such unless States have some tricks up their sleeves they will lose. I would like to see the filing though.


Still the logic will flow like this:
without insurance commerce is occurring -> govt regulates that commerce via mandate -> govt authority for such is derived from Commerce Clause of Constitution -> as such this activity is a delegated power (not a power reserved for the States).

That logic is far more discrete than the view of some on this thread that federal govt can do anything it wants unless the law specifically is prohibited by the Constitution.

My only fear about this is it expands the Commerce Clause even more. The Commerce Clause has already been interpreted by the courts to go far beyond the original intent of founders. It is reaching the point of making States Powers (states have no rights) a moot point. That is a dangerous precedent because it removes one check and balance which has kept the Republic together for over 200 years.

[kctim]

13. You are not forced

to have car insurance unless you are wanting to drive on govt roads. It is your choice.
Not so with this HC bill. You pay a private company no matter what.

[Beetwasher]

38. Bullshit, You Can Opt To Pay A Tax Instead

n/t

[kctim]

99. It all ends up

in the same place, to do the same thing. The only "choice" you have is on when you decide to pay as mandated.

[Beetwasher]

101. You Have A Choice

You are not being FORCED to buy from a private company. Not that that is unconstitutional to begin with, but it's still a bullshit argument.

[kctim]

112. Riiiiiight

How silly of me.
Huge difference between writing a personal check to a private company and writing a personal check to the govt to give to that private company.

[Beetwasher]

117. Yeah, It Is Silly Of You

Since you're tax to the gov't is not going to a private company.

[kctim]

121. Yep

Just like giving my friend to buy drugs means my money isn't going to drug dealers.

[Beetwasher]

123. Oh, That's Exactly The Same!

How stupid.

[kctim]

130. Exactly the same

while spinning in order to deny facts so one can jump thru hoopes like good little sheep, is what is truly stupid.

It is a mandate, not a choice. The sooner you acknowledge that fact, the sooner you can stop wasting your time trying to make it something it is not.

[Beetwasher]

132. Cuz You Say So! Prove That Your Tax Is Going To An Insurance Company

Come on. Put up.

[Better Today]

33. No you don't have to own a car, AND only liability insurance is mandated

by the gov't. Now if you are paying off your car, then the bankers require you to get full comprehensive, but the gov't only expects you to get insurance to cover damage you may do to someone else or their property.

[kenny blankenship]

52. Not a function of the federal govt.

[dems_rightnow]

103. Oh Jesus....

... the Stupid hurts......

[ProdigalJunkMail]

141. +1K FER FUCK'S SAKE!

[AndyA]

3. I think Congress is going to have to act quickly to deal with that flaw.

People will not stand for having another bill/tax/whatever you want to call it forced upon them.

With no cost controls, people are going to be very angry. Dems in Congress will need to deal with this quickly or they will lose their seats. It's a stupid idea, and if they allow it to stand they deserve to lose their seats. (We just don't deserve the mess the GOP will create when they take over.)

[Beetwasher]

6. What Flaw? What Part Of The Constitution Prohibits This?

n/t

[The Hope Mobile]

16. The mandate to buy insurance is a "flaw" . . . it is also the central point of this bill

Its not going to be removed though it should be.

Anybody see how insurance stocks have skyrocketed today?

[Beetwasher]

31. No, It's Not A Flaw, It's Essential

Everyone has to be in the system for it to work. Otherwise you can't mandate that people with pre-existing conditions be covered.

[AndyA]

79. Everyone in the system with COST CONTROLS. Without anything

to contain costs, it is a FLAW. People will be furious, as they'll still be at the mercy of the insurance companies in many respects.

Plus, Howard Dean said on television that Vermont has had health care reform without a mandate that everyone has to join, and the insurance companies seem to be doing fine there.

[mvd]

83. I'm personally opposed to the mandate/tax idea

I don't know if it is unconstitutional, and I agree with Beetwasher that everyone should be part of the system. But IMO, without a public option or strict price controls, it is immoral and a bit authoritarian. I'm glad we got the foundation for regulation down. But it needs to be stronger.

[The Hope Mobile]

154. Of course, everyone should be "included" . . . mandated to pay is a different thing . . . and

no cost controls which would be implemented with a public option . . .

[Beetwasher]

136. Ummm, The Mandate IS Cost Control

Everyone pays in so that people with pre-existing conditions are not discriminated against with higher premiums.

[The Hope Mobile]

150. This way we ALL get higher premiums and the insurance companies have all the control

meanwhile people that can't afford it (which could easily be most of us soon) are screwed.

[Beetwasher]

151. You Must Not Be Paying Attention

Since Ins. Co's will now be federally regulated like they never have been before, including their premium increases. If you think that's them having all the control, you have a funny definition.

[The Hope Mobile]

153. You apparently missed the part where those regulations were stripped out this past week.

And the regulations that WERE in there . . . didn't go anywhere near far enough.

[Beetwasher]

156. They Are Going To Be Federally Regulated

Like they never have been before, that is not more control for the ins. co's by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of your bullshit, unsupported spin.

[Beetwasher]

5. What Part of The Constitution Prohibits It?

n/t

[ixion]

7. Never in the history of this nation has it be requisite for citizenship to purchase

a private, for-profit product from a for-profit company.

I really can't see how making that so is in any way constitutional, if not by letter, than by the spirit of the document.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[The Magistrate]

11. That Is Not How The Law Is Structured, Sir

A person is taxed for not having insurance, and the matter is specifically exempted from criminal penalties. You might as well argue that people are required to buy a home on mortgage, because people who do not do so pay higher tax rates....

[Better Today]

50. Please tell me you aren't really and never have actually been a Magistrate, please.

Because what you write is just wrong. In order for it to be correct, you'd have to have a penalty for those that don't buy a house on a mortgage. I'm guessing you are suggesting that because mortgage interest can be deducted by some through itemized deductions that guarantees somehow that the mortgagees are paying less tax. That may or may not be true. The only way your idea would hold up would be if everyone of any income level or any tax level were required to pay $750 per year because they didn't own a mortgaged home. Particularly when one realizes as per Warren Buffett, that he pays less taxes than his secretary to realize your idea is holey.

[The Magistrate]

59. In Effect, Sir, That Is Exactly What Happens

People at any particular income level and suite of deductions pay more in taxes if they rent rather than purchase on credit. Obviously, the law is not phrased in the form of, 'you will pay a higher rate, or an excise, for renting rather than purchasing on credit', but that remains its effect. Persons who rent are required to pay a higher portion of their income to the income tax than those who purchase on credit.

[Better Today]

67. No, its not. I get where you are coming from, but the factors

effecting tax rate and taxable income are much more complicated and there is no such guarantee that those with mortgages pay less overall tax than those without, nor that they pay a lesser % overall. Again, it would only be equivalent if there were an actual fine for not having a mortgage.

[The Magistrate]

149. In Effect, Sir, Renters Pay A Fine. But That Is A Side Issue

Between the Commerce and Supremacy clauses, under present readings, there is little room for doubt this will withstand challenge.

[Better Today]

71. Just a side note,

since you have no idea if I'm a ma'am or a sir, perhaps your tendency to put that particular word in every post needs to be revisited. It is very offensive in this format, in my opinion.

[Beetwasher]

29. So, IOW, It's NOT Prohibited

So therefore, it's not unconstitutional. At all. Period.

[ixion]

32. I think it remains to be seen...

No one has been stupid enough to pass legislation to force a precedent.

[Beetwasher]

35. Show Me The Language

You can't because it's not in there. It's not prohibited.

You can't even come up with a single thing.

[ixion]

40. I said there was no precedent

because no one had been stupid enough to force one.

Perhaps the silver lining in this wretched bill will be that it is declared unconstitutional to mandate the purchase of a private product as terms for citizenship.

The matter is unsettled, I assure you.

[Beetwasher]

42. Cop Out

There's nothing prohibiting this. Not a single thing. Not a shred of language. Nothing.

Furthermore, no one is being forced to buy insurance. You can opt to pay a tax instead. Taxes are totally constitutional.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

53. But what part of the Constitution does it offend?

These 9 states will need arguments from that document, not just assertions that it has never been done before.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Here is one respected Constitutional scholar's opinion...

Credit goes to girl gone mad for digging this up.

"Are health insurance mandates constitutional? They are certainly unprecedented. The federal government does not ordinarily require Americans to purchase particular goods or services from private parties. The closest we come is when government imposes a condition on the grant of discretionary benefit or permit. For instance, in most states, you must have auto insurance to drive a car, or you are required to install fire sprinklers when building a new house. But in such cases, the "mandate" is discretionary – you don't have to drive a car or build a house. Nor do you have a constitutional right to do so.

But Americans do have a constitutional right to live in the United States. Accordingly, neither federal nor state governments can require you to purchase health insurance as a "condition" for residency. The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between requirements that are flat-out imposed by government and those imposed as a condition for discretionary benefits... "unfunded mandates" are unlike any form of government regulation we've seen.

(snip)

In fact, under the law, there's a big difference between participation in a government health program funded by taxes and privatizing such a program, with individuals forced to purchase private health insurance.

Taxation involves representation, as when Congress appropriates money and controls a government program for the general welfare. This describes Social Security and Medicare. But government cannot simply delegate its taxing powers to private business.

What representation do we have in the insurance firms whose products we would be required to buy, at prices and terms they set? Can we vote out an insurer's board of directors for denying claims or paying its CEO a multimillion-dollar salary? Here, too, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between taxes imposed by government and mandatory fees set by entities with private interests.

A health insurance mandate is essentially a forced contract, in which one party (the insurer) gets to set the terms. You must buy their policies, even if you prefer to self-insure, rely on alternative medicine, or obtain treatment outside the system. In constitutional terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process or a "taking of property."

more...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0326/p09s01-coop.html

[Statistical]

17. Exactly. This paraprahs sums it up.

But government cannot simply delegate its taxing powers to private business.

What representation do we have in the insurance firms whose products we would be required to buy, at prices and terms they set? Can we vote out an insurer's board of directors for denying claims or paying its CEO a multimillion-dollar salary? Here, too, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between taxes imposed by government and mandatory fees set by entities with private interests.

A health insurance mandate is essentially a forced contract, in which one party (the insurer) gets to set the terms. You must buy their policies, even if you prefer to self-insure, rely on alternative medicine, or obtain treatment outside the system. In constitutional terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process or a "taking of property."

Taxation is legal/constitutional because it is taxation with representation. Govt could double my taxes and that would be Constitutional. I have (at least in theory) the opportunity to seek changes via changes in elected officials.

As a private citizen I have ABSOLUTELY no control over what Cigna or Aetna decideds to do in the name of profits. I believe Congress has no authority to abdicate its taxation responsibilities to an obviously biased 3rd party.

Now public option likely would make the mandate legal but without it, no way. At a minimum it is at least worth letting the courts decide.

[Beetwasher]

37. Well, Then, It's A Good Thing You Can Opt To Pay A Tax

Insted of buying insurance.

[Statistical]

46. Taxation without representation.

Congress has no authority to pass tax collection & representation off to 3rd party. They don't even have authority to pass that responsibility to the President much less the CEO of Cigna.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

30. Unprecedented Is NOT Unconstitutional

And this mandate doesn't require you to buy from a private company. That's bullshit.

You can pay a tax instead. Taxes are totally constitutional.

[Hosnon]

54. Here's my "Obama is a Chess God" theory:

A public option may be the remedy to a Supreme Court's ruling that this bill is unconstitutional.

[Beetwasher]

56. PO Would Be Awesome, But It's Not Necessary. You Don't Have To Buy Insurance

You can opt to pay a tax. You have choices in this legislation. It doens't come anywhere even close to being unconstitutional.

Notice in this entire thread there has not been a single shred of language from the constitution posted to back up the assertion that it's unconstitutional? Do you notice that? There's a reason for that. It's a completely unsupportable assertion. It's total nonsense.

[Statistical]

69. You completely fail at undetstanding the Constitution.

The Constitution isn't a giant list of prohibitions on the federal govt.

The Constitutional limits EVERYTHING the federal govt can do EXCEPT the powers it has been delegated.

Thus the question isn't what prohibits the federal govt.
The question is what grants the federal govt the power to mandate purchase of a product or pay a penalty.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

77. Keep reading...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th 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. - 10th Amendment

In the 9th the founders expressly indicated that our rights are numerous. Far more numerous that can be written in the BofR.

in the 10th they very clearly indicate any power not EXPRESSLY GRANTED to federal govt in the Constitution belongs to the States & the People.

So once again where does the Constitution delegate the power to mandate purchases by citizens?

It is getting more and more obvious you have never read the Constitution have you. I would recommend you do so before you look more foolish.

[Beetwasher]

81. Umm, You Realize Your Making MY Argument For Me?

Thanks!

IOW, there's nothing in there prohibiting congress from doing this. In fact, it grants the power to Congress TO DO THIS.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

88. Congress Is Granted The Power To Create Laws

Duh.

YOU are claiming this law is unconstitutional. How? You can't back up that bullshit. It's YOUR claim. YOU claim it's unconstitutional. SHOW ME WHERE.

You can't. It's YOUR claim, not mine. Just because this particular law is not enumerated, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

There are THOUSANDS and thousands of laws that are not explicitly spelled out as allowable in the constitution.

Your argument is idiotic on it's face.

[woo me with science]

125. You are wrong. nt

[Beetwasher]

126. Cuz YOU Say So! Ok, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, WHAT IS BEING VIOLATED?

Congress passes legislation. Period. That is the power they are enumerated with.

If YOU say that legislation is unconstitutional YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP. What part of the constitution is being violated?

Come on, back it up.

[woo me with science]

128. Please go back eight posts.

The point was explained to you. It is not the poster's fault that you did not understand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7984128&mesg_id=7984934

[Beetwasher]

131. He's Wrong And So Are You

The constitution enumerates powers AND provides limits to the powers of federal gov't (ever hear of the Bill of Rights?) "Congress shall make no law...".

The power to pass laws is enumerated to Congress. Period. A law is only unconstitutional if it VIOLATES some part of the constitution.

It's not my problem you people don't get that.

If congress passes a law making it illegal for black people to vote, that would be unconstitutional because it is in VIOLATION of the 14th ammendment.

Get it?

What part of the constitution is being violated by this legislation? It is up to YOU to show that. Congress already has the power to pass this legislation. That's what they do.

[woo me with science]

139. The other poster appears already to have abandoned this thread,

because you are not able to comprehend the concept of enumerated powers. Your question to me here further underscores your ignorance of the concept. I strongly suggest you spend some time reading on the topic before you embarrass yourself further.

You also might check your spelling of the word, "amendment."

I posted on this thread because you were being so belligerent to someone who was trying to teach you something. I hoped that another voice would prompt you to look at your own argument more critically. There actually ARE potential arguments to be made on your side, but when you insist on starting with (and then belligerently defending) a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution works, there is not much anyone can do to help you with this argument.

Good day to you.

[Beetwasher]

140. The Other Poster Is As Clueless As You Are

You got nothing so you resort to spelling flames.

The fundamental misunderstanding is yours. But keep up the spelling flames! It's all you got.

If something is unconstitutional it is in violation of some part of the constitution. That part can be the enumeration of powers.

So, if you are claiming that's the part that is being violated, back it up. Exactly what power is Congress abusing that was never enumerated to them?

[The Hope Mobile]

155. + 1 (not to mention not understanding that the mandate does NOT

help control costs!)

[Beetwasher]

158. That's Exactly What The Mandate Does

It spreads out the risk so that that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage and have the same premiums as everyone else.

[The Hope Mobile]

159. You're soooo looking at this backward. Sorry. See below.

That's the same irrational line you were using before. It doesn't create cost control just a greater number of people that the insurance companies can screw at whatever rate they want.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

[Beetwasher]

165. FDL????? LOL!!!

Fail for parrotting Tea Bagger supporting Kill the Bill douchebags at FDL.

The mandate is cost control. Deal with it. Not too mention MLR's, federal review of premium increases etc.

Read the bill, don't post crap from FDL to support your idiotic assertions.

[The Hope Mobile]

168. OK dude. You're on a democratic board and nobody's agreeing with you

Maybe YOU ought re-examine your understanding of . . . a lot of things. Like logic. Good luck. You're gonna need it.

[Beetwasher]

169. No, You're Not Agreeing With Me. Then Again, You Are Nobody, So Maybe You're Right

But who cares what you think? You're wrong, read the bill.

Umm, Jeenyus, the Democrats I care about are the one's who, you know, actually write and pass meaningful legislation, you know, the experts on the subject. Not some anonymous dipshits on an internet discussion board.

[The Hope Mobile]

170. And that's why you're arguing with everybody on this thread. You've already been warned

by a mod and I believe deleted a few times. You've been told by several that you're lacking logic, in fact, that's what you responded to when you came up with your same faulty logic. This isn't rocket science. Get some manners and logic or start your own board if you want to keep living in your fantasy world.

[Beetwasher]

172. Blah Blah Blah

You don't like my manners? Too fucking bad.

Read the bill instead of spouting idiot crap from shills like FDL.

[The Hope Mobile]

176. LOL! Nice comeback!!

Not surprising though. Take a course in logic and enjoy Ignoreville - I'm sure you're there for a lot of people.

[Beetwasher]

178. Run Away!

:rofl:

[msanthrope]

98. Yes---the federal government can raise excise taxes on economic activity.

Under the Commerce Clause, it can state that people who refuse to join the risk pool will be assessed an excise tax.

Now, are you seriously suggesting that healthcare is NOT ecomonic activity?

[Statistical]

109. Is "non-participation" an economic activity?

Govt can regulate interstate commerce.
If I buy insurance the govt can regulate the terms, conditions, and other criteria of that commerce. However if I DON'T buy insurance has any interstate commerce transpired?

That is the question which States are raising. The govt is attempted to regulate a "lack of commerce" (my words due to lack of good term).

In another post your brought up Raich. I will tie it in here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

In Raich, commerce is already occurring (buying/selling marijuana) as such the govt can regulate it. In this instance they chose to take the extreme stance of prohibition. You are trying to argue the reverse is true. For example if CA prohibited marijuana and federal govt allowed it could the federal govt FORCE you to buy marijuana or pay a fine on "non-commerce"?

I partially agree with you. The case will be won or lost on Commerce clause. Unlike someone else on this thread (who believes power of federal govt is unlimited) you understand the Federal govt must have the delegated power for a law to be Constitutional. Without delegated power the law is Unconstitutional on it's face.

So the govt obviously believes it is delegated this power from the Commerce Clause.

The question is does the Commerce Clause extended to "non-commerce"? Ultimately that is a question for the courts. I give the federal govt 70/30 odds in their favor. Still I think it will ultimately be heard by Supreme Court.

[msanthrope]

124. Yes...non-participation in the risk pool is economic activity.

You frame 'non-participation' as 'non-commerce,' but I think that is an incorrect statement of the issue.

A person who chooses NOT to buy healthcare is still particpating in the commerce of healthcare. Just in a different way, i.e., in not joining the risk pool, one affects the rates of others (negatively) just as joining the risk pool affects the rates of others (positively.)

So, I think healthcare is more correctly stated as a particpation/non-participation issue. Whether you like the health plan or not, you still are affecting commmerce--and that's the hook.

If you look at Raich, then, yes--even things not traditionally bought and sold, even things that are comepletely intra-state are subject to regulation.

[Statistical]

127. Well I did concede that the states will likely lose however IMHO it is a matter for the courts.

It would involve expanding the interpretation of Commerce Clause.

Sadly the Supreme court (being a federal court) over last hundreds years hasn't been very favorable to the States when it comes to the CC. Given that I think they will lose.

Long term the continual expansion of Commerce Clause will undo any separation of power between states & federal govt. We might as well dissolve the states and just the the United State because they will exist in name only.*


* Well no we shouldn't because some future court may undo that precedent.

Still thanks for the civil discussion and an understanding that although the Commerce Clause is an open door the size of an interstate the power of federal govt is not unlimited. Federal govt must have delegated power to enact any legislation. In this case (if federal govt is successful) that delegated power comes from the Commerce Clause.

[msanthrope]

134. No expansion necessary--it's all there in precedent. Take a look

at excise taxes.

Thank you for civil discussion.

[Statistical]

137. Still has there EVER been an excise tax on a "non-product"

There are plenty of excise taxes on purchase of product (gasoline, alcohol, firearms) however one can "opt-out" of that tax by NOT purchasing the taxed product.

This is the first instance (I am aware of) in which the person "opting out" will be one paying the tax.

Excise tax or not I think (sadly) the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is enough to make this ruled Constitutional by the courts.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it or that I won't consider it Unconstitutional. :)

I considered DC & Chicago ban on firearms Unconstitutional long before the courts finally ruled in favor of those rights.

[msanthrope]

90. Why are you citing an article written 2 years ago, i.e. before the law

was written?

It doesn't address an excise tax, so, FAIL.

[Gravel Democrat]

27. The Constitution is a limiting document

The Feds powers are spelled out there
and in the Amendments, the part that is "Living".

For example, the Feds (and a lot of screaming do gooder
nanny types) wanted to make Alcohol illegal. They were smart
enough to understand that they had to amend the law of the land.
Then, they amended the amendment :D

The Feds wanted to make everyone a slave via a direct tax. They
realized that they would need the 16th Amendment. (Imagine that,
this country existed for ~139 yrs without an income tax.

This Congress would have said that since there is a commerce clause
and booze flows b/w states they could have done it with 61 votes.

Then there is this: Amendment X--

"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."

That is as clear as a bell. If only laws could be written like that today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
When was the last time you read the Constitution and the Amendments?

[Beetwasher]

34. Again, Where Is It Prohibited?

It's not. Therefore, it's not unconstitutional.

No one can show me any language in the constitution prohibiting this legislation or LIMITING the gov't from doing this. None.

[Statistical]

60. That isn't how the Constitution works.

Where is the prohibition in the Constitution on forced circumcision?

The Constitution delegates specific powers to federal govt and then limits the role of the federal govt to powers not delegated.

It also has this nice clarifying 10th amendment (put in there just in case in the future people like you are confused).

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.

So the question isn't what prohibits the federal govt the authority it is what GRANTS the federal govt the authority.

The federal govt is already prohibited in every area it isn't granted authority.

All powers can be broken into 3 categories
Federal Powers (powers outlined in Constitution)
Prohibited Powers (powers that violate citizens rights)
Reserved Powers (everything else granted to states or people)

[msanthrope]

93. If you think a 10th amendment challenge is going to defeat a Commerce

Clause case, you are incorrect.

You might want to read up on actual cases--start with Raich.

[Beetwasher]

95. This Is So Fucking Stupid I Can't Believe You're Not Embarrassed

Please show me, law by law, where EVERY single law that's ever been passed is expressly ALLOWED by the constitution.

How fucking stupid. So, for Congress to pass any law, it must be expressly allowed in the constitution?

Congress is given the power to create laws. Period. And unless the law is in VIOLATION of some part of the constitution, then it's not unconstitutional.

So, put up or shut up. Show me how it's unconstitutional.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. Where is the power to mandate the purchase of a product delegated to congress?

[Beetwasher]

102. Congress Is Enumerated With Power To Pass Legislation

Period.

If YOU say it's unconstitutional, YOU need to show what part of the constitution it violates.

You can't.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

110. This legislation violates taxation without representation, for one thing.

Congress is delegating the power to lay duties that I am required to pay (or face penalty) to a private third-party.
I have no vote (elected representative) or say in how a private corporation is run or how the rates are set rates at.
The problem is that there is no obligation/penalty free opt out choice.

The legislation congress passes must not infringe on the rights of the People.
Simply because they can pass legislation does not mean all legislation is constitutional.

[Beetwasher]

113. How Fucking Stupid. You Had An Opportunity To Vote Didn't You?

How are you not represented?

You sound like a tea bagger.

You don't have to buy insurance, you can pay a tax.

If you say it's unconstitutional, SHOW ME WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IT VIOLATES.

The onus is on YOU.

[Winterblues]

21. But they both do Mandate you pay...from every single paycheck.

What's the difference? I am forced to pay taxes that go to Private Corporations also...

[ixion]

23. Agreed. So why add to that misery? When that is the source of the problem?

I just don't get it.

They've taken it one step further in this case by tying insurance cos directly (via the mandate) to the IRS.

[ixion]

24. Agreed. So why add to that misery? When that is the source of the problem?

I just don't get it.

They've taken it one step further in this case by tying insurance cos directly (via the mandate) to the IRS.

[merh]

28. you do realize that a provision of a bill can be found

unconstitutional and the remainder of the bill can survive, don't you?

[ixion]

41. Yes. And if the mandate is removed, so is my objection to the bill

I'm all about making health care available to people. I'm NOT for gentrifying a corrupt system.

[Posteritatis]

161. Also, they weren't enacted in this climate

If either was implemented for the first time under this administration, you can be goddamned sure the Republican states would react the same way.

[Bolo Boffin]

177. 1792 - The Militia Act mandated every free man purchase a gun to be ready to join a militia.

Give it up, ixion.

Choosing not to buy insurance IS an economic decision. It's choosing to self-insure, and if you don't have the funds, the rest of us pick up the tab you can't. Congress has every authority to mandate something like this as it affects the regulation of the interstate health insurance business.

[Bleacher Creature]

8. States cannot sue to repeal federal programs. It's settled law.

This is beyond grandstanding.

[Statistical]

12. Not true.

Attorney general is simply acting on the interest of the people.
The people can sue the govt to seek redress of grievances.

The states can't sue simply because they don't like the law but nothing prevents the people from suing over something they believe is Unconstitutional.

Many a Supreme court case has involved Attorney General as the plantiff.

Now the law may be Constitutional at which point they lose the suit and law stands but that is a matter for the courts to decide. My guess is it gets appealed by either side all the way to the Supremes.

[Bleacher Creature]

145. Yes true.

People are allowed to file lawsuits for anything they want and the only thing stopping them are (1) the threat of sanctions being imposed by a court (which is very rare) and (ii) ethical obligations (if you are a lawyer). That said, the fact that someone files a frivolous lawsuit doesn't mean anything, and that's exactly what this would be.

Yes, state AGs are parties to many federal lawsuits, but name one successful litigation where a state sued on the basis that a federal law was an unconstitutional use of the federal government's powers pursuant to Article X of the Constitution. Seriously, just name one case.

The only part of the bill that won't get laughed out of court is the mandate, and a state AG doesn't have standing to bring that lawsuit -- only someone who was penalized for not buying insurance can show demonstrable injury. This is beyond grandstanding.

[Better Today]

44. Except we aren't actually talking about a "federal" program, but

instead a federal mandate that everyone participate in a private program. That's the difference. I think that the gradual lowering of Medicare age was one of the most well received ideas through this whole fiasco, and that would be more in line with what you're thinking.

[WeDidIt]

10. It's political posturing by rightwingnut attorney generals

They know it will go nowhere, but it won't be decided before the 2010 elections.

[sharesunited]

14. The crazy thing is, TAXING everybody for universal care is accepted to be Constitutional.

It is only the fetish of protecting the for-profit insurance industry which caused this questionable method of mandates to be tried.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. YES!

Why they didn't just tax everyone $XXXX up to a maximum of X% of thier income is certainly questionable.
They DO have the power to tax for GENERAL WELFARE.
Why did they delegate the power to (effectively) tax the people to private enterprise?

[Statistical]

25. Because the private enterprise (insurance companies) have the money and money is power. n/t

[Statistical]

20. Thats right. because a universal system is controlled by the people.

Representation follows that taxation. If people want more benefits then they accept higher taxes. If they want less benefits they accept less taxes.

Regardless of how much is paid in insurance premiums and/or tax/fine the people have no representation in the board of Aetna or Cigna. Can I vote to have the board of directors removed and replaced with more Progressive ones? I don't think so.

[sharesunited]

45. Those are public traded companies, so theoretically you DO have the power.

If you own and vote shares of those companies, that is.

Which I encourage everyone to do.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. Paying for the right to vote? No thank you. (n/t)

[high density]

70. You're paying for the right to own part of the company

and that ownership includes voting rights.

[msanthrope]

94. And that's what this is--an excise tax.

You do NOT have to buy a health insurance policy.

You will be assessed an excise tax for failure to join the risk pool.

[Arkana]

89. Sorry, but we already answered the question of nullification over 150 years ago.

Andrew Jackson first and Abraham Lincoln second--federal law always supercedes state law.

[Statistical]

129. Nullification restricts states ability to directly challenge federal laws they deem unconstional

In this instance the States aren't directly declaring the law Unconstitutional.

The attorney general's are filing a suit in federal court on behalf of the people.

Regardless of the merits it will be the federal govt (judicial branch) deciding if the federal govt (Legislative branch) has passed something unconstitutional.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. There is no actual mandate to purchase anything.

There is a tax for not having health care coverage. These are two different things.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

97. Time for these states to put up or shut up

Propose their own health care system.

[mvd]

105. I propose putting no energy into the Repuke AG's efforts

That just plays into their plan to strike down health reform. We should make inside-the-bill changes instead.

[zbiker]

147. and wyoming has done so, along with

quite a few other states, someone actually made a good point last night. with so many states moving forward with this effort, if they find themselves unsuccessful in the courts there are enough of them to move to change the constitution :), I'm unsure how many are needed but it was indicated that it can indeed be done to protect the citizens from this and other offensive bills.
personally, i think there are some wonderful things in this bill, but there are a lot more bad things that within the next three years will force me and a lot of other small business owners to close our doors for good, i just wish they had seen fit to fix the economie first, then i would have had a chance to pay into the system and make a go of it.
is it too late to take back my vote ??

[Statistical]

148. Amendment requries 3/4 of states to ratify.

(Intentionally) pretty hard to change Constitutional.

Of course even getting to ratification requires an amendment be proposed by either 2/3rds vote of both houses of Congress or a Constitutional Convention with 2/3rds of the States.

The constitutional convention method has never been used. It is unlikely Congress would propose and pass and amendment that limits its own power.

[laughingliberal]

100. I believe the issue is about the regulation of commerce

Taxing and using the money to pay for public services with the money collected and distributed by the government to provide for the general welfare is perfectly constitutional.

I am not sure it is constitutional for the government to order people to pay a private, for profit corporation to provide a service. It would be analogous to the government requiring you to buy any other service from private businesses. Suppose they decided manicures were essential to our well being and ordered us all to go to a salon and have our nails done every week?

That said, I do not expect the Constitutional challenges to succeed. But this is not the same as Medicare and SS. Medicare and SS funds are collected by the government and administered by the government and/or companies with whom they contract to administer them. We are going the wrong direction. I don't know of any service which was once provided by the government which has not increased vastly in price once it was privatized.

[Joey Liberal]

106. Oklahoma is challenging it - with many uninsured too

Oklahoma has thousands of uninsured people, most of whom have jobs. But they vote republican.........

[DCBob]

111. I find it hard to believe this was not cleared by constitutinal experts...

advising the WH and Congress. I suspect they have this covered.

[yodoobo]

114. I believe they are only challenging HCR

and laving Social Security and Medicare out of the suits.

[End Of The Road]

138. It may be unconstitutional for the FED GOV to require it.

You can't compare this to auto insurance. Auto insurance is not a federal law, it's state controlled. Two states don't require it (although they do require financial responsibility of other types).

In many (if not all) states, which insurance companies are licensed to sell insurance in that state is governed by that state. I'm wondering if my counterpart in, say, Iowa will have the same premium I will have in Texas for the mandated coverage.

I'm thinking that the states that are claiming "unconstitutional" are doing so because Congress is infringing on states rights.

[upi402]

143. We know "they" will fight this to the Supreme Court, and...

we know what this activist rightwing court will do.

Dems have a Pyrrhic victory. We have a facade of a democracy. And now our former party will get trounced with the recent Supreme Court letting unlimited money propagandize citizens in the corporate media. Doesn't look good to me.

[branders seine]

152. Then they'll shoot cannons at Fort Sumter.

[mdmc]

157. No. Everyone pays into SS and Medicare

Only the uninsured are "fined" for not getting coverage.

[Javaman]

160. Didn't start off as 20?

then I just read on raw story that it was 13.

Now it's 9?

seems like their brand if insanity is losing steam.

[0rganism]

164. maybe some of the AGs bothered to read the bill...

...and figured out the constitutional challenge would just waste everyone's time? dunno. could happen.

[Javaman]

175. They are intellectually challenged in a glacial sort of way.

they will eventually get it, even if the mouth breathing tea bagging ball lickers don't.

but I'm sure there will be one or two hold outs. Orly taits? LOL

[leftygolfer]

162. I always think I know what is going on

until I log in here. I'm not as smart as most of you, but you all sure do confuse me

[Matariki]

163. Jesus - the ignorance of arguments like this!

Please, think things through before you post nonsense like this. The difference is glaringly obvious.

[mb7588a]

166. And aren't they against frivolous health care lawsuits? Just wonderin'. nt.