Skipping the appeals court Obama going to SCOTUS. Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html#ixzz1Z7Aa8vpw
The Supreme Court usually gives deference to Congress, but it is quite a stretch to say the commerce clause gives Congress the power to require Americans to purchase health insurance.
if they ahve the power to tax, then why wouldnt they ahve the power to tax if you dont have insurance.... ify ou can get a tax credit for having kids or be able to write off your mortgage, why couldnt they tax you more if you dont have inusrance?
While the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, it does not give Congress the power to require people to engage in commerce. Which is what Obamacare does.
are you saying that the threat of paying more taxes is the same as requiring you to do something? does that mean there is a mandate to have children?
Commerce Clause: 'To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Regulating commerce does not include regulating commerce within states themselves, but between them. Commerce is defined as "intercource" which not only includes buying and selling, but the transport of goods, which is why rivers/oceans and air is federally regulated, and not regulated by states. I agree, the commerce clause is a pretty weak argument by itself, but as others have pointed out: The ability to tax is another story. If they argue that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives them the "Implied Power" to create regulation to implement an individual mandate, I see it as possible. Big Hint: Social Security is a form of an individual mandate in the form of a tax. It all depends on the argument they bring to the SC. If they rely purely on the commerce clause, they may lose as has happened when certain statutes have been passed that could have been seen as "constitutional" if they were only argued using different clauses in the constitution to justify the law. But I do think its possible that even if the US SC deems the law unconstitutional, the congress could levy a tax on people who dont buy healthcare for themselves, which would not be an individual mandate per se. They do this in the prison system currently: Since they cannot FORCE prisoners to work, they take privilages away from them if they choose not to work. Some choose not to, but most work so they can enjoy the privilages. Healthy people might just consider buying health insurance instead of paying a % tax on their income, considering health insurance should be cheaper for healthier people. But unhealthy people, who would have a high insurance bill might be better off taking the % tax because it might end up to be cheaper. I dont agree with the law one bit, but I dont think anyone can foresee what the SC is going to do, nor the effects the law will have on cost and quality. *popcorn*
Well, lets be honest, we know they are too different means to the same end. But legally, in the context you are speaking in, no they are not the same. On thge other hand, imposing more taxes does require you to "pay more taxes." SO the imposition does require you to do something.
... and any US Supreme Court Justice that does not recognize this fact is not fit to sit on the bench. They should be removed.
My take on the same subject: http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...lanta-appeal-health-care-law.html#post4508166
Since the supreme court is mostly republican we know what will happen. If it were mostly democrat, it would be the opposite. The world we live in...
In essence, forcing ObamaCare upon the American people is akin to it being a requirement to being a citizen.
It's not a revenue tax though. Even the law itself says that it is a punishment fine. A tax has to have a legitimate revenue raising function, not levied as a punishment.
By your logic congress could pass a law that says you have to go to church or pay a tax and you think that would be constitutional?
Historical precedent shows that to be false. Congress has required people to engage in commerce and buy private goods in the past.
Good! There are enough real Americans on this court to shut this progressive leftist loser boondoggle down.