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.
First off, 2 federal judges have ruled the law unconstitutional and 2 federal judges have ruled it constitutional.
26 (actually 28 now) state Attorneys General (almost all Republican, btw), have filed suit, or joined in this suit, that does not give any weight to the constitutionality of the law. It just means people are suing. Not everyone who sues, wins. Again, 2 for, 2 against. At the moment, there is no binding ruling that the Administration is required to abide. This kind of language is where you lose me. I'll let your own Wikipedia link explain it to you then.
"Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."
So the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress could impose a fine on Filburn and force him to buy his wheat through the open market, because his non-participation in the open-market purchase of wheat, negatively affected interstate commerce.
In that same regard, Congress has relied upon the decision in Wickard to enact a law that in essence says, "through the cumulative actions of thousands (in this case millions) of individuals not participating in the health insurance pool, the economic effect becomes substantial, and viewed through the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
This is how the law works. Courts use decisions in one or more cases, to decide other cases, not based on whether each case was about feathers or gumballs, but based on the larger question as to how those laws are applicable to the Constitution.
And in this case, Wickard is the precedent being used. You lost me again.
Thank you for very patiently explaining this--I'd rep you 10 times if I could.
One more thing for some of the rest of you--I think the disconnect here is that some people think of the law as a big rule book that spells out every possible situation. That's not possible, so "case law" or precedents set by rulings in other cases with similar issues in higher courts, are used to justify how the law should be interpreted in different situations. That's why a ruling about growing wheat (does the government have the right to regulate individual behavior if it impacts interstate commerce under the interstate commerce clause) absolutely applies to the health care mandate.
Thank you for very patiently explaining this--I'd rep you 10 times if I could.
One more thing for some of the rest of you--I think the disconnect here is that some people think of the law as a big rule book that spells out every possible situation. That's not possible, so "case law" or precedents set by rulings in other cases with similar issues in higher courts, are used to justify how the law should be interpreted in different situations. That's why a ruling about growing wheat (does the government have the right to regulate individual behavior if it impacts interstate commerce under the interstate commerce clause) absolutely applies to the health care mandate.
So when a judge rules that Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage is legal in California, is that the end of it? Or can someone bring the case before another judge and get the law overturned?
When was the last time they had a huge, super majority in the congress?
You've lost me here. Where did you come up with this "super majority?" The R's have a majority in the house now, where the votes just require a simple majority vote. It only takes one vote over the majority to pass a bill, so it doesn't matter if you have 50 votes over or one.
The Senate, controlled by the Dems, requires a simple majority as well unless a bill is being FILIBUSTERED--meaning that people are trying block it from coming up for a vote. That takes 60 votes--or a super majority--to break a filibuster. You can't filibuster budget bills. Neither side has a super majority for a filibuster if it goes along party lines now.
So when a judge rules that Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage is legal in California, is that the end of it? Or can someone bring the case before another judge and get the law overturned?
It can be appealed to a higher court. It doesn't automatically go there though--the higher court has to agree to take a look at it.
You've lost me here. Where did you come up with this "super majority?" The R's have a majority in the house now, where the votes just require a simple majority vote. It only takes one vote over the majority to pass a bill, so it doesn't matter if you have 50 votes over or one.
The Senate, controlled by the Dems, requires a simple majority as well unless a bill is being FILIBUSTERED--meaning that people are trying block it from coming up for a vote. That takes 60 votes--or a super majority--to break a filibuster. You can't filibuster budget bills. Neither side has a super majority for a filibuster if it goes along party lines now.
We have a Dem for a president.
The republicans have such a overwhelming majority in the congress, that even if only 80% or so of republicans vote for a measure, it passes. When is the last time they had that large of a majority?
The republicans have such a overwhelming majority in the congress, that even if only 80% or so of republicans vote for a measure, it passes. When is the last time they had that large of a majority?
I see what you're saying, but many votes (not all) fall along party lines, unless they're not very controversial. Right now the democrats have 193 members in the House, and the republicans have 242. In order to pass a bill there, you need 218 (50% +1) votes. If they only had 218 votes, they'd still pass most of the bills through.
The big issue now in the House isn't so much on whether the Republicans can pass bills through that chamber without the democrats (but bills still have to be passed through the Senate--controlled by dems--and signed by the president to become law). The issue is more if the Republican leadership can get all the republicans to support their own proposals. If the 70 freshmen tea party members refuse to vote with the other republicans on some of the upcoming issues, they aren't going to get anything done without a big fight AMONG the republicans.
And here you go again, large and in charge with your medical 'knowledge.'
Again, all of my Doctor friends that you tried to put down on a previous post have said Obamacare is the worst thing that could ever happen to the medical industry and is or will hurt their jobs.
If the Dr you work for (and you are not a Dr and do not have a Dr's knowledge - you are a nurse) says Obamacare is good, he/she is the ONLY one saying so and therefore I absolutely discredit him/her.
Knowledge of how insurance companies work is not "medical knowledge". We probably know more than the docs b/c we're the ones who have to deal with these high school dropouts that work for the ins. cos.
I work for a group of five doctors, none of them has indicated any plans to leave the profession b/c of Obamacare. The worst I have heard is "we'll have to learn a different set of rules".
I think it's against the TOS to bring up baggage from other threads.
Another big waste of time in government--after constant accusations by the R's that Reid wouldn't put the bill up for a vote in the Senate because it would fail, he did just that. The votes fell straight down party lines. There was absolutely no surprise here, but it was a massive waste of everyones times. Can we all get back to work on the economy now? We knew from the start this would be decided by the SCOTUS, and that's where it's headed.
The good news--the D's worked with the R's to remove the tax reporting required for small business--it was a very reasonable move. Let's see if the R's are that willing to extend the same spirit of compromise as well in the future.
Clearly not a waste of time, elections have consequences. The elecorate wants this thing gone, those who obstruct those ends will be gone in 2012.
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.
