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.
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.
*************To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;*******************
No wonder the judge ruled against obama care...
So this gives them the right to make me buy something?
I don't see that....
Edited to add the entire section, so I would not get harassed about only putting one sentence in...
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Commerce clause argument is a bunch of crap. The criminalization of Marijuana is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS uses the commerce clause to push an agenda. Plain and simple.
*************To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;*******************
No wonder the judge ruled against obama care...
So this gives them the right to make me buy something?
I don't see that....
Maybe this will help you understand. . .
There were 2 questions at issue in Wickard.
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.
Why start here? Why haven't Republicans defunded big government programs in the past when they had power?
Defund? Try it!
Because, like the ones in charge of the democratic party, the ones in charge of the republican party are liars.
If you want smaller government and to lower the debt the only ones doing that now are Tea Party candidates.
That would be just great, except that under the constitution's "necessary and proper clause," it explicitly provides for the regulation of ANYTHING (including an activity or an inactivity) that "has an effect" on interstate markets. Read the attached article--it explains it fairly clearly.
Why have a Constitution if government can do as the please under the guise of "knowing whats best for us". Enumerated powers mean just that.
Don't people understand the reason for our revolution was to cut the ties of ALL tyranny? No one stood up and said "I can't wait until we get our tyrannical government to replace their tyrannical government".
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.
Thanks again for explaining this so clearly. I grew up in a family highly involved in government, and I've spent a chunk of my career involved in policy analysis and political strategy, but I'm not an attorney (that would be my DH). Case law is obviously not my strong point. You managed to explain this is in a very simple, easy to understand way.
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.
Just like you disagree with the judge....I disagree with you....this does not give the government the right to MAKE me buy anything...
I'll read the wickard case again....but I believe he stated that he bought the extra wheat "ON the open market" to plant....for his chickens....so he planted more than what he should have...but he stil bought the extra seed on the open market...right?
Thanks again for explaining this so clearly. I grew up in a family highly involved in government, and I've spent a chunk of my career involved in policy analysis and political strategy, but I'm not an attorney (that would be my DH). Case law is obviously not my strong point. You managed to explain this is in a very simple, easy to understand way.
You're welcome. I'm glad it was elucidating for you.
FTR, though, I am also not an attorney, but I have also been involved in government in my career in a manner of speaking, and do my best to follow relevant case law. Ironically, I've learned most of what I know about Wickard's application here, from an extremely conservative, Republican acquaintance of mine, who is an attorney in the D.C. area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Just like you disagree with the judge....I disagree with you....this does not give the government the right to MAKE me buy anything...
I'll read the wickard case again....but I believe he stated that he bought the extra wheat "ON the open market" to plant....for his chickens....so he planted more than what he should have...but he stil bought the extra seed on the open market...right?
The government wasn't attempting to regulate seed, they were attempting to regulate wheat. He did not buy the wheat for his personal use on the open market, which therefore had an effect on commerce. 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.
Like I said, this isn't a ruling I'm particularly fond of. But re-litigating Wickard isn't on the table. It's established law. And its findings are what Congress is relying on to support the individual mandate in the Health Care Law.
You're welcome. I'm glad it was elucidating for you.
FTR, though, I am also not an attorney, but I have also been involved in government in my career in a manner of speaking, and do my best to follow relevant case law. Ironically, I've learned most of what I know about Wickard's application here, from an extremely conservative, Republican acquaintance of mine, who is an attorney in the D.C. area.
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.
. . . in order that economic commerce not be adversely affected. It mattered not that Filburn was already a farmer. It mattered that beyond the limits he was allowed to grow, he grew wheat for his own personal consumption, which kept him out of the open market. That's what the opposition is arguing, but they aren't correct. Wickard unanimously found that, not only was there inactivity on the part of Filburn (by way of not buying wheat on the open market), but that him alone not buying wheat wasn't at issue so much as the aggregate result of thousands (or millions) of non-participants in the open market substantially affecting commerce. They didn't know or care whether all these other thousands (or millions) of non-participants were actually farmers. They found that the government had the power to compel participation in the open market of a commodity, when non-participation in the aggregate could cause serious harm to the economy.
Frankly, it's a terrible ruling. But it's established law now, and has been for nearly 70 years. Would that that were true, but that isn't what Wickard says.
Your arguments are all good -- against Wickard. Which is why if the Supreme Court wants to now draw a line, it will necessarily be an arbitrary line, otherwise they will have to throw out Wickard. And while it's not unheard of for a long-held ruling to be overturned, overturning Wickard in this case would have sweeping ramifications that I don't believe this court wants to unleash. Wish that were true. And the inability to compel an individual from buying just any old private product, say, shoes, for instance, was dealt with under Lopez. There must be a compelling economic reason for Congress to exert that power. And in the case of Health Care, since it is a commodity that absolutely affects economic commerce, under Wickard Congress has that power.
See Wickard. See Lopez. See also Morrison. The person who doesn't drive a car isn't affecting economic commerce by not driving. The person (such as Filburn), who doesn't participate in the open market for a product, where that lack of participation affects economic commerce, can be compelled to do so. I'm afraid he didn't.
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 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.
Is that where you really want to go, for the sake of health
care reform? Not me.
You bring up the Lopez case - which told Congress they have the power to regulate only economic activities.
The Morrison Case - parts of the law were deemed unconstitutional because Congress was attempting, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate non-economic activity.
They stated “Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional state concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and state authority would blur.”
A person who has not bought something is clearly not
engaged in economic activity. e.g. not buying insurance,
whether it be life, health, disability etc.
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
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.
