So congress has the power to mandate a military draft but not mandate health ins. participation?

[phleshdef]

Thats what I'm now asking a lot of people who are raging against the mandate (that really isn't a mandate considering there is an "out").

Now I'm not for any kind of draft being used for anything short of a direct invasion on American shores (as if we'd need one if that were the case). And as far as I can tell the commerce clause gives congress all the power they need to make this so called mandate constitutionally sound. But for those right wingers who suddenly care about this, I have to ask them how they can approve of congress having the power to force Americans to go off and put their lives on the line for any little old war they choose to start but yet get all up on their "states rights" soap box when it comes to something that will be used to ultimately ensure we can afford healthcare for everyone.

[SKKY]

1. That's a very good question.

I'd be very interested to read what some of the more constitutionally savvy DUers have to say on this particular topic.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. The Constitution gives congress the explicit power to "raise and support Armies"

That is a clear indication that they have the power of draft/conscription.
This has even been decided upon by the supreme court.

There is no enumerated power for congress to force people to buy products, or said otherwise, to initiate commerce.
They only have the power to regulate existing interstate commerce.


There is an argument that non participation in the market affects commerce and this action can be regulated. I believe this is a dangerous precedent. Given this logic, the gov can force you to do ANYTHING so long as they can prove your actions will affect the market some way or the other. Basically, it's precedent for the gov to tell to do whatever it wants. (See: Tyrrany) I would certainly like to see a ruling on the mandate laid out in the HCR. If nothing else, if the mandate stands, SCOTUS will issue a brief outlining the boundaries of such a precedent. The last thing we need the government doing is making another power-grab "in the name of the commerce clause". IMO.

[phleshdef]

3. I'm really asking more from a moral standpoint than a constitutional one.

I personally feel there is plenty of precedent all ready in place that makes the mandates constitutionally kosher. The right wing side of the mandate opposition doesn't really care that much about the constitution anyway I wouldn't think. It didn't matter when we were torturing people.