Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well that is such a good idea but since we can't afford Medicare for the ones who have it now maybe free medicine won't work for over 300 million. Of course, taking $50 billion from Medicare to pay part of the cost for the incoming newbies maybe tells us that we can't afford what you want to see.
But Roy, it's the new improved Medicare for all
take a look:
Can Congress regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce?
Can Congress regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power?
It's question 2 that goes to the Health Care Mandate
The court held that, yes, Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is indirect.
The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulatecommodity pricesand practices affecting them.
If, by the practice of not purchasing a commodity on the open market (in the Wickard case, wheat, in the Health Care case, medical insurance), there is an aggregate effect on prices of said commodity, Congress has the power to regulate under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In Wickard, Filburn was forced to burn his excess wheat (the commodity in that case) and purchase what he needed for his personal use on the open market. Therefore, it follows that under Wickard, an individual can be forced by law to purchase health insurance (the commodity in this case) "on the open market" in order to regulate the price.
But no where under your number two
argument, was the farmer mandated to even buy wheat
He could have chose to buy corn, or soybean on the open market. Or he simply could have decided not to farm anything.
Just curious here--does your friend think there's any way the SC can get around this without throwing out the Wickard ruling? My understanding is that this case also puts Scalia in a tough spot because it would force him to backtrack on a ruling he made that actually adds support to the mandate issue (can't think of the case--again not my strength--and I don't have time to look it up). Your friend (or you) may very easily know what I'm referring to.
The only way to rule against the mandate in the Health Care Law without overturning Wickard is to attempt to distinguish between "economic activity" and "economic inactivity". But to do so would be drawing a very arbitrary line that likely won't hold up, seeing as how Filburn was "inactive" in the open market with regard to purchasing wheat for his chickens, but was ordered to destroy his crop and purchase the wheat for his personal use on the open market.
As for my friend's opinion, he believes the SC can't (or shouldn't) fail to overturn Wickard but still rule the Health Care Law unconstitutional.
And (and this comes from me again), there's just no chance they'll overturn Wickard, because so much Civil Rights law rests on it as a precedent, that we'd end up with a tumbling house of cards regarding Civil Rights.
With that in mind, it is very, very unlikely that the Health Care Law will be overturned by the Robed ones.
I'm not familiar with the Scalia ruling you're talking about. I'll see what I can find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
I think we are interpreting Wickard very differently.
let's say the farmer changed his mind and took his excess wheat to market, flooding it with his wheat. He was ACTIVELY ENGAGED growing excessive wheat, regardless of the "inactivity of not taking it to market". That is precisely why he was fined.
I'm not in a position to re-litigate Wickard. Wickard's facts are as they are, and the ruling has been "Decided Law" for nearly 70 years. The reason I keep mentioning the number of years its been in effect is that the longer a law has been "stare decisis", it becomes increasingly less likely that the Supreme Court will ignore it when deciding future cases.
I'll say again, I'm no fan of the Wickard decision. But it is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
I guess, we should have to discuss and define
a commodity itself. A commodity is a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.
Obama's legal team stated last year "Obama’s lawyers tried to draw a distinction between insurance and physical products such as broccoli, shoes, and trucks. Health insurance, the White House's legal team claimed, was somehow different because of its status as a "financing mechanism." But, if you going to use Wickard to state it as a commodity, It becomes no different than the broccoli argument
So with your reasoning, If Congress can compel everyone to purchase health insurance, then it has the power to compel everyone to purchase any product or service.
Not so. As you rightly point out, Morrison was ruled against because it did not affect economic activity, and Lopez further clarified that the regulation has to have a substantial relationship to the economic interest. Broccoli doesn't meet that criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
Is that where you really want to go, for the sake of health
care reform? Not me.
Hell no! I want Universal Healthcare for ALL, and for everyone to just be taxed to cover it.
I spent months, badgering and begging my Representatives, as well as the White House, then-Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid, to at least include a strong Public Option in the bill.
I think what we got doesn't go nearly far enough.
But, as has been pointed out by politicians on both sides of the aisle, for decades, is that without a mandate for full participation, healthcare costs cannot be kept in check. Healthcare has an enormous effect on our economy. If we don't do something now to rein it in, we're looking at another industry's collapse as more and more people are dropped and more and more people opt out because they simply cannot afford it any longer. The fewer and fewer participants, the higher and higher costs to everyone, even those paying cash! Do we really want to be "bailing out" the Health Insurance giants in 10 or 20 years? Because that's what I foresee happening without this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
It will be very interesting to see what the SC decides - they of course, could deny to hear the case altogether, allowing for the lower court decision to stand
But no where under your number two
argument, was the farmer mandated to even buy wheat
He could have chose to buy corn, or soybean on the open market. Or he simply could have decided not to farm anything.
That's where it becomes necessary to fully read the decision in Wickard.
The Justices made numerous references to the fact that they were aware that this case wasn't merely about telling someone not to grow a certain crop, but it was about forcing someone to make a purchase. And they did not make a distinction anywhere in the ruling that Filburn had the option to not be a farmer anymore or to simply purchase something different.
"The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent, as well, to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs."
"But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market."
"It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers."
The Supreme Court is going to have a sticky Wickard getting around this one.
The ruling found that the government was within its Constitutional Authority to force him to buy wheat for his chickens on the open market and not grow it himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
The government wasn't attempting to regulate seed, they were attempting to regulate wheat.
I have looked at numerous links....I have seen that he destroyed the excess wheat...I have seen he sold the excess wheat....
*****Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.****
****Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.*****
Whether this law is right or wrong...because it is law...laws are over turned all the time....
Just reading everything...I would say that law is stupid...the guy made a whole 12 acres more....of wheat....so what....in the end was he wrong, absolutely.....
Does this need to be looked at again and maybe overturned...yep...
How many other cases have been resolved because of this case?
Nope I disagree with you...and so do a lot more people.....this case cannot be used to render a judgment over EVERYONE in the United States buying health insurance...
Even in your own response, it said only "some" farmers....sorry....
I have looked at numerous links....I have seen that he destroyed the excess wheat...I have seen he sold the excess wheat....
*****Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.****
****Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.*****
Whether this law is right or wrong...because it is law...laws are over turned all the time....
Just reading everything...I would say that law is stupid...the guy made a whole 12 acres more....of wheat....so what....in the end was he wrong, absolutely.....
Does this need to be looked at again and maybe overturned...yep...
How many other cases have been resolved because of this case?
Nope I disagree with you...and so do a lot more people.....this case cannot be used to render a judgment over EVERYONE in the United States buying health insurance...
Even in your own response, it said only "some" farmers....sorry....
Well, none of this is an actual legal argument, but okay.
Because of how the court ruled in that case. It's the ruling and its application that matters.
The court ruled that Congress had the power, based on Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, to regulate a private citizen's participation or lack there-of, in areas that effect the economy.
It's got nothing to do with wheat.
It's got everything to do with what powers that ruling clarified were afforded to Congress.
Congress would be well within its power to create Medicare for all through payroll tax, to generate funds to provide health care for all citizens, forgoing any involvement with a particular private industry - IF their argument is for cost containment to the government.
So, then I have this question for you If the argument
from Congress/Federal Government is:
The government says that, without such a rule, people could forgo buying insurance until they became sick, at which point the new law would require insurers to provide coverage. The effect would be to eventually drive insurers out of business, the administration says.
Does Congress have the power to mandate purchase of a particular private product by all its citizens simply to ensure success of a private product?
Well, none of this is an actual legal argument, but okay.
By who's standard? Yours?
Even if you don't fully agree with the law..which I highly doubt...that is all you talk about...being the end all, to end all, and why obama care should be the law of the land...
The only thing you have given is your opinion, you don't like it when people disagree with you...that is obvious in many threads...
You have tried to explain and many just don't see what you are trying to explain...
and you double talked, I called you on it and you don't like that either...
You use your own words...which do not always explain exactly what it is the court said......you put your twist on it to make it go your way...
Either way..nothing you have said or attempted to say has swayed me or much anyone on this board.....
So continue to believe what you want and so will I, I believe that obama care will be repealed....and this law you state will have nothing to do with keeping or rejecting obama care...
I don't know (nor do I believe) that that is the argument the government is making, so I can't comment on what would follow or not. Sorry.
Then why are you making such a fuss over it?
Let me ask you...have you EVER broken the speed limit?
This will answer A LOT of questions on why you are acting like this...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
