What will be the outcome of Supreme Court and Obamacare or ACA?
- Thread starter texan
- Start date
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Correct states require auto insurance but not every one does and powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
Social Security and Medicare are tax and spend programs making them a completely different beast than this health care boondoggle. If we could repeal the tax on income amendment we would solve many of our nations troubles.
My prediction is that there is some type of compromise and parts are struck down. I hope I am wrong and the entire thing is struck down.
brett636
Well-Known Member
None of those examples are even close to the constitutional issues brought up due to Obamacare.
Auto insurance has been covered, it is required by the states, not the federal government, and can be avoided by simply not driving. It is a requirement only if you make the choice to own a car and drive on public roads.
Social Security and Medicare are programs that make use of the government's power to tax, and those taxes go to the government and are returned in the form of a direct benefit. The difference with Obamacare is you are not paying for any direct benefit from the government, but are punished if you do not go out into the private marketplace and purchase a product (health insurance) with another private entity. As the justices rightly asked where does this power end? Can the government force us to buy GM cars, or broccoli, or burial plots? If the government can tell us what we have to buy for our own good are we still a free people?
Talking points from a partisan point of view. The fact of the matter is the Constitution gives Congress the right to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.”
I find it amusing that a certain party is all for States Rights, except when it isn't.
If the decision comes down to a 5-4 vote to overturn the law, it will reflect poorly on the SCOTUS.
For Scalia to toss out catch phrases is demeaning to the stature of the SCOTUS. The phrase about reading it is absurd. It has half the words that the bible contains, and I'm sure he's read that.
Severability is the main sticking point. If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the ACA will fall.
Of course, if the court rules against the ACA, they would then be forced to uphold States rights in other matters, like legalization of marijuana, or speed limits.
The ironic thing is the Heritage Institute support the individual mandate. If a Republican president had put forth this law, there would be no argument. This is Partisan politics at it's worse.
You people crack me up.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
My state requires car insurance only if you do not have the means to cover the costs of an automobile accident just short of posting a bond.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
To keep the individual states from erecting protectionists trade barriers or more simply put to create a national free trade zone.
"the Commerce Clause grew out of the abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the states, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the general government."-Madison
ajblakejr
Age quod agis
I look at what we will be required or expected to purchase compared to the choices we will lose.
If I want to eat something dripping in nutritional naughty-ness; I want to eat it and enjoy it.
I do not Michelle Obama to send her goon squad to rip the bad stuff out of my hand.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Encyclopedias called The Obama Oracle Encyclopedic Books of Knowedge.
Let's try this from another angle. What exactly can the federal government force it's citizens to do? The that I mean both constitutionally and by force they do without meaningful restraint. Can they subject people to unreasonable search and seizure? Can they murder it's citizens? Personally I don't know, but after listing the powers already coopted by the federal government, in contrast forcing people to have health insurance may seem to the court benign and inconsequential.
brett636
Well-Known Member
So your proposal is the Supreme Court, whose duty it is to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress, should allow Obamacare to stand simply because the government already violates the Constitution on other levels? Now isn't that a slippery slope that any rational human being would not want to travel down? That very thought process nullifies the very existence of the Supreme Court , and would pretty much state that the government can violate the constitution as much as it wants just so long as it does so incrementally. I am not saying that isn't already happening to some degree, but at some point the line has to be drawn, and if possible moved the other direction.
No, I would say I don't really have much of a position at all on the matter, just musing about how a justice could rationalize a position should they so choose. Can the federal government impose a penalty for not paying it's tax? And attach lofty interest? Does this constitute coerced commerce in the marketplace? In fact it does not only in causing an entity to enter into a transaction with the government prescribed by congress for not acting in accordance with the law. Also, the penalties and interest represent a negative affect on the taxed entity tobe able to enter into private commerce with the monies delegated to payment of the penalties and interest. What then is being purchased by coercion? The entities good name? Freedom? Credit worthiness? I contend that it is all of the above and much more. Does this befall everybody? No. Only those who fail to enter into the tax market in a prescribed fashion, namely a timely manner. But who does not enter the tax market as either a payer or payer or consumer of taxes?
Babagounj
Strength through joy
sure they'll rip it out of your hand & feed it to her.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
There is a constitutional amendment allowing for a tax on income.
