Health Care Law Massacred in Supreme Court

[gwb72tii]

Do you believe that Medicare and social security are unconstitutional?

are not both voluntary? you have to work and pay taxes to participate.

[nrubenstein]

If the federal government offers health care, who is paying for it? They can't just start setting up their own 'businesses' and giving the option to use their services...that's nonsense, which is why I believe the waffleswaffleswaffles is unconstitutional, the federal government has no authority to oversee the education of the children in this country

Do you believe that Medicare and social security are unconstitutional?

[jrobie79]

If the federal government offers health care, who is paying for it? They can't just start setting up their own 'businesses' and giving the option to use their services...that's nonsense, which is why I believe the waffleswaffleswaffles is unconstitutional, the federal government has no authority to oversee the education of the children in this country

[nrubenstein]

I don't agree with that. Article 1 section 8. The Congress shall have Power To: enumerated powers....

how is that telling the states thou shalt?

And the tenth stating: 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

maybe I'm missing something but your statement doesnt seem to follow that?

If the federal government offers a health care service directly, it has no right to tell the states that they can not also offer their own, nor can it prevent private companies from offering their own either. You seem to be confused by the difference between whether something can be done at the federal level and whether the states have the right do do something else if they want to.

Likewise, the states have no right to receive a share of the federal government's tax revenue. The fact that they do receive a large share (and in fact are thoroughly dependent on it) makes obedience as a condition of funding essentially mandatory. Perfectly constitutional. They don't HAVE to take the money. The fact that they would go BK if they didn't is not a constitutional issue.

[mrsleeve]

While nearly forgetting the orginal intent in the process

[KenC]

yeah, the commerce clause has definitely been taken WAY out of context...another thing though, there is no interpretive power in the constitution. the legislative branch is responsible for making laws, but with the interpretive power train of thought, it appears that 9 people are responsible for making the law of the land. the constitution created and bounds the courts, not the other way around

The courts rule on legislative intent all the time.

[jrobie79]

yeah, the commerce clause has definitely been taken WAY out of context...another thing though, there is no interpretive power in the constitution. the legislative branch is responsible for making laws, but with the interpretive power train of thought, it appears that 9 people are responsible for making the law of the land. the constitution created and bounds the courts, not the other way around

[mrsleeve]

Its a stretch and a big one, to get this to fall under the "modern" interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which has been so far perverted from its original and true intent its disgusting.

[KenC]

I believe the argument they're trying to make is that it's impossible for anybody in the US to effectively "opt out" of the health care "market." That by simply being a citizen, that you're a part of the US health care system (or non-system as it really is). I guess we'll see how the justices interpret the commerce clause soon.

[jrobie79]

I don't agree with that. Article 1 section 8. The Congress shall have Power To: enumerated powers....

how is that telling the states thou shalt?

And the tenth stating: 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

maybe I'm missing something but your statement doesnt seem to follow that?

[nrubenstein]

the federal government has specific enumerated powers which grants what it can do...its not what it can't do, and providing health care is not one of those enumerated powers. Post roads is an enumerated power....so highways are constitutional. I could be wrong, but thats how it is written....and health care not being in there, gives states the right to decide based on the 10th amendment no?

*sigh* No. The federal government has limited powers to tell the states "thou shalt." However, it has every right to say "thou shalt if you want me to pay for any of it." There is a HUGE difference.

And if the service is simply provided at the federal level, well, you can't not pay taxes. You don't *have* to use it though.

[jrobie79]

the federal government has specific enumerated powers which grants what it can do...its not what it can't do, and providing health care is not one of those enumerated powers. Post roads is an enumerated power....so highways are constitutional. I could be wrong, but thats how it is written....and health care not being in there, gives states the right to decide based on the 10th amendment no?

[nrubenstein]

right, but to do that you would need to amend the constitution to state that, there is no mention of healthcare in the constitution, same goes with marriage or education (waffleswaffleswaffles unconstitutional?)....the states on the other hand (massachusetts) can do it, and have.

If the federal government provides the service, it's perfectly constitutional. You could also achieve it by withholding all federal funding for medical care unless states implement a program that conforms to federal requirements. (i.e. highway funding - most likely a couple of states would opt out on principle, but everyone else would get it. And the laggards would eventually turn around.)

[jrobie79]

right, but to do that you would need to amend the constitution to state that, there is no mention of healthcare in the constitution, same goes with marriage or education (waffleswaffleswaffles unconstitutional?)....the states on the other hand (massachusetts) can do it, and have.

[herbivor]

^because universal healthcare does not force anyone to buy a non-governmental product. But if you provide it for everyone and tax accordingly its no different than providing any other government service. And I don't consider myself a law expert but that's how I've heard it explained by experts as being constitutional.