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.
Someone hinted at it - The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, originally intended to regulate railroads. This little piece gives the government rights over all sorts of legal economic regulatory activity and has held up to Supreme Court interpretations of constitutionality (commerce clause - article 1, section 8). I stress the word "interpretation". It's a judges job to "interpret" what the founding fathers meant when they drafted the consitution, like it or not.
Everything feeds from this act - the creation of the IRS, civil rights laws in the 60's, current "bail-out" laws, even the FBI. When a kidnapper crosses state line the FBI gets jurisdiction. That's all due the the ICA.
So like it or not, it's coming - mandated health insurance, raised premiums, health service rationing, raised taxes to pay for it all.
Edit - Glitch had an interesting note about "INTRA state commerce". That's not covered by the ICA so he has a good point.
You are approaching the question from the wrong direction; what in the Constitution precludes the Congress from doing so?
The 10th Amendment.
Quote:
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.
Someone hinted at it - The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, originally intended to regulate railroads. This little piece gives the government rights over all sorts of legal economic regulatory activity and has held up to Supreme Court interpretations of constitutionality (commerce clause - article 1, section 8). I stress the word "interpretation". It's a judges job to "interpret" what the founding fathers meant when they drafted the consitution, like it or not.
Everything feeds from this act - the creation of the IRS, civil rights laws in the 60's, current "bail-out" laws, even the FBI. When a kidnapper crosses state line the FBI gets jurisdiction. That's all due the the ICA.
So like it or not, it's coming - mandated health insurance, raised premiums, health service rationing, raised taxes to pay for it all.
Edit - Glitch had an interesting note about "INTRA state commerce". That's not covered by the ICA so he has a good point.
You are mistaken about the Supreme Court. They do not support your interpretation of the Commerce Clause. See Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997), and United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995). Both are recent cases where the US Supreme Court has thrown out the unconstitutional law because Congress overstepped their constitutional authority with regard to the Commerce Clause.
Congress can only set up regulatory entities where the US Constitution gives them the authority. Regulating health-care is not a power that has been granted to Congress by the US Constitution, and Congress may not usurp that power from the States.[/quote]
Right or wrong. The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you and this includes the conservative members of the supreme court.
The test is whether what they intend to regulate has a substantial (economic) impact on interstate commerce. One of the enumerated powers is to regulate interstate commerce. This is how many federal laws are justified.
The federal government has passed many laws that deal with health care including HIPPA and ERISA just to name a few. Now if it is your contention that the Supreme Court is misinterpreting the Constitution, then I can understand that, but until they decide differently, which is unlikely, that is the law of the land.
If you want to challenge it, go get a lawyer and have at it.
Please don't attempt to argument before a Federal Court...
The 10th Amendment seems to be the go to argument whether it has anything to do with the issue at hand or not... so, what in the Constitution precludes the Federal government from establishing a mandatory health care plan which would be precluded by the 10th Amendment?
I understand the argument that Congress has the authority to create a national health insurance system under the "general Welfare" clause. I'm not saying I agree with it or even that they really do have the authority, but I understand that there is a legitimate debate.
However, when I read that Senator Kennedy wants to mandate that all businesses offer health insurance to their employees, I have to ask: Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to do that? Another approach would be to require all citizens to have coverage. Again, where is Congress authorized to do that?
When corporate charters were first instituted, the idea was to tell businesses what they can or cannot do. Those were some very limiting rules and guidelines and the people (the government) could revoke the license anytime. The idea was to prevent corporations from running the country again.
Having said that, would you mind providing a link/source to your claim that the bill is about mandating health insurance to employees? Because from what I know, it is NOT. There's a lot more to the bill than what you've been hearing from idiots that run the media and influence people with their own opinion to meet selfish motives.
Once we have a proper understanding of the bill, we can talk about legalities.
Congress can only set up regulatory entities where the US Constitution gives them the authority. Regulating health-care is not a power that has been granted to Congress by the US Constitution, and Congress may not usurp that power from the States.
Right or wrong. The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you and this includes the conservative members of the supreme court.
The test is whether what they intend to regulate has a substantial (economic) impact on interstate commerce. One of the enumerated powers is to regulate interstate commerce. This is how many federal laws are justified.
The federal government has passed many laws that deal with health care including HIPPA and ERISA just to name a few. Now if it is your contention that the Supreme Court is misinterpreting the Constitution, then I can understand that, but until they decide differently, which is unlikely, that is the law of the land.
If you want to challenge it, go get a lawyer and have at it.
The Supreme does not disagree with me, I am citing the specific recent US Supreme Court cases where they state flat out that Congress has overstepped its constitutional authority with regard to the Commerce Clause.
See Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997), and United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995).
Quote:
Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers.
Although this Court has long interpreted the Constitution as ceding Congress extensive authority to regulate commerce (interstate or otherwise), I continue to believe that we must "temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence" and return to an interpretation better rooted in the Clause's original understanding.
Source: Justice Thomas, Concurring Opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997).
You are mistaken about the Supreme Court. They do not support your interpretation of the Commerce Clause. See Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997), and United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995). Both are recent cases where the US Supreme Court has thrown out the unconstitutional law because Congress overstepped their constitutional authority with regard to the Commerce Clause.
You are right in saying that the other poster is wrong; however, Lopez was overturned because congress overstepped their bounds. If you read my post, I wrote that the activity that congress seeks to regulate must have an (economic) impact on interstate commerce. Lopez involved school gun free zones which in no way would affect interstate commerce so congress could not use the commerce clause to justify the law. Health insurance and health care is completely an economic animal that does cross state boundaries. This is not even a close call. But I am impressed that you looked up a couple cases.
The test is whether what they intend to regulate has a substantial (economic) impact on interstate commerce. One of the enumerated powers is to regulate interstate commerce. This is how many federal laws are justified.
Demonstrating an economic impact of mandated health insurance would be about the easiest argument to substantiate.
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.
