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.
If one chooses NOT buying healthcare, THERE IS NO COMMERCE taking place. The commerce give the government authority to regulate commerce which crosses the state border, not the INACTION of commerce which is the outcome from NOT buying insurance..
18 hours later, no liberal can explain what commerce is taking place when I DONT buy insurance? Funny, you guys were the very same ones pushing this argument, but cant explain how it actually takes place..
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
What choice is there again?
I don't know if I'm a liberal or not, however, I found a for and against argument that I thought were good.
Quote:
A Tax Like Any Other
Jack M. Balkin
Jack M. Balkin" is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. His latest book, with Reva B. Siegel, is “The Constitution in 2020.” He participated in a discussion on this issue in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance.
Randy Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown Law Center and author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.”
The smart money is always on the Supreme Court upholding an act of Congress. And the smart money is right until the day it is wrong — as when constitutional law professors confidently predicted the court would uphold the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1995 and the Violence Against Women Act in 2000.
The professoriate was shocked when both laws were held unconstitutional because they exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
The individual mandate goes far beyond these previous acts. Congress has never before mandated that a citizen enter into an economic transaction with a private company, so there can be no judicial precedent for such a law. Telling someone how they must do something is one thing; commanding that they must do something is entirely different.
Imagine if Congress ordered the majority of American households without a firearm to buy a handgun from a private company, and punished their failure to do so with an escalating monetary fine, which it labeled a “tax.” Would the supporters of the health insurance mandate feel the same about the constitutionality of such a measure?
I agree with Randy Barnett, so what label do I wear?
Commerce is taking place because you are mandated to buy health insurance and will face penalties under the law if you do not.
This bill also is a federal regulating the states and all individuals within the states. It will be overseen by the IRS. If you can not show the IRS your updated insurance card, then they will tax you from your pay check. (I think they will do both)
All programs, social security, medicare, Medicaid are voluntary programs. While there may still be a tax on the U.S. citizen it is not mandatory for any one to use their services. They are state regulated programs. What one state offers in assistance may be different in another state.
Even the mandate on the purchase of car insurance is a state mandate state regulated (nanny) law.
The federal government through health care will now tell the citizens and the state governments they answer to, there is not opt out on the purchase of health care. None.
Ever been backed into a corner and told there was no way out? We have now.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 04-01-2010 at 12:24 PM..
Reason: add title, verb tense
This is an informative article on the Commerce Clause issue.
Quote:
Government by Commerce Clause
The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to establish a free-trade zone within the United States by removing internal trade barriers—to promote the unhindered traffic and exchange of manufactured items and foodstuffs.
Unfortunately, over the past 70 years, the Commerce Clause has been stretched beyond recognition.
Unfortunately for the progressives, the Commerce Clause can't really be used as an argument because insurance is not permitted to be sold past state lines unimpeded. Thus, you'd have a contradiction when you force someone to buy a product and that product can only be purchased by a company who's been approved by a state.
If one chooses NOT buying healthcare, THERE IS NO COMMERCE taking place. The commerce give the government authority to regulate commerce which crosses the state border, not the INACTION of commerce which is the outcome from NOT buying insurance..
Even if you are buying insurance the commerce clause doesn't come into play because you cannot buy outside of your state.
18 hours later, no liberal can explain what commerce is taking place when I DONT buy insurance? Funny, you guys were the very same ones pushing this argument, but cant explain how it actually takes place..
You are just upset nobody is jumping in to argue your absurd assertion.
You are just upset nobody is jumping in to argue your absurd assertion.
What do you find absurd about the argument posed concerning the contradiction between the notion that inactivity constitutes commerce and that a person is federally forced to purchase a private product when the federal government will not allow it to be freely purchased between states?
Usually, if an argument is absurd, someone will quickly debunk it by using a cited example of such a case occurring. However, since you or no one else can do such a thing, it is the people sitting on their hands and hoping this thread falls off the page who are absurd. Speaking of which, thanks for the bump!
What do you find absurd about the argument posed concerning the contradiction between the notion that inactivity constitutes commerce and that a person is federally forced to purchase a private product when the federal government will not allow it to be freely purchased between states?
Usually, if an argument is absurd, someone will quickly debunk it by using a cited example of such a case occurring. However, since you or no one else can do such a thing, it is the people sitting on their hands and hoping this thread falls off the page who are absurd. Speaking of which, thanks for the bump!
OK, I'll bite. Here is a synopsis of why the Commerce Clause applies. Ultimately, a couple of years from now, the SC will put an end to the conflict, but until then, have fun agruing about it.
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.
What choice is there again?
Speaking of which, thanks for the bump!
