Reply With Quote
I wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying.
I agree strongly with this.
Fair enough.
I thought perhaps you had. My bad. Thx for your reply.
Stupid Manny beat my ass to the point.
I wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying.
I agree strongly with this.
Fair enough.
I thought perhaps you had. My bad. Thx for your reply.
Sidenote: Judge Hudson severed the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision from the ACA.
pp.40-41
That's a good recap of the ruling with the pro and cons of the Judge's analysis laid out. Thanks!
I did briefly peruse an interesting academic discussion between two very smart law professors at Volokh Conspiracy about the nature and scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. Const., Art. I, section 8, cl. 18)("The Congress shall have the Power . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the [enumerated powers in Art. I, section 8] . . . .") and its interplay with the enumerated powers (and, specifically, the Commerce Clause).
http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-sig...dsons-opinion/
http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/further...proper-clause/
Apparently, the court's opinion considers, but ultimately dismisses, an argument that the N&P clause gives a Cons utional basis for the enactment. One might think that such a determination will become a significant part of the appellate arguments at subsequent levels.
Monday morning quarterbacking. The USG didn't rely on any of these arguments regarding Section 1501(b)(1) of the ACA.This is a completely defensible, if controversial, reading of the Supreme Court's precedent. The biggest difficulty for this argument, however--and one with which Judge Hudson did not grapple--is why Congress can use other Article I powers to compel individuals to do something. For example, it has long been settled that Congress can use its powers under Article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13 (to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy") to force individuals to register for the military draft. It can use its Article I, section 8, clause 9 power (to "cons ute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court") to compel individuals to serve on juries. It can use a variety of its Article I powers to compel individuals to transfer their le to property pursuant to a condemnation (though, of course, the government must pay "just compensation").
fact of the matter is, the modern Supreme court has been very wary of any arguments saying that there is no limit to the commerce clause power. If there are any actual limits, they are certainly going to find this is outside of them.
It'll be a 5-4 decision, but all you need is 5.
I think there may be at least some chance that the Supreme Court chooses not to review the judgment in this case and waits for the other circuits to offer their views on the law. Such reticence is fairly common for a number of reasons; it may also be somewhat pragmatic, depending upon how the electoral winds are blowing in the next 18 months.
Mandating compulsive purchases of goods from the private sector is not right, and where does it end? That's where it went completely wrong for this monstrosity.
The real solution was a mixed system of government-run and price controlled baseline care, with a privately-run insurance option/overlay on top for those who want it or can afford it. But that boat already sailed.
not the same at all. Car insurance is there to protect third parties and property. Health insurance is there to ensure you have access to medical care.
If you get sick no third parties get hurt or suffer loss of property.
As for the cost to hospitals, If the government wants to pick up the tab, its up to them.
These two issues are completely seperate and there is no need to link the two.
Auto Ins is mandated to drive, which is a privilege. The prerequisite for having health care under this legislation is simply being alive.
A tax on being alive is justifiable?
I dont ing think so.
such a mandate really is the epitome of the type of tyranny our founding fathers were trying to escape...the type of oppressive government that wielded the power to enslave the population.
The scope of this power, if upheld, can be extended to bring the masses under the boot of the federal govts heel. That very possibility is supposed to be precluded under our cons ution.
Funny how this is so simple, yet so ungraspable for those who have come to see big govt as beneficial and necessary.
Last edited by Parker2112; 12-13-2010 at 07:03 PM.
Which is pretty re ed anyways, since the 9th amendment says that the Consitution is about limiting specific rights of the government, and that the people may have rights that aren't explicitly outlined.
Affordable Care Act, just another lie.
the sick-care industry wouldn't allow govt to touch the industries exorbitant prices.
"those who have come" = Manny, btw...not the same at all. Car insurance is there to protect third parties and property. Health insurance is there to ensure you have access to medical care.
If you get sick no third parties get hurt or suffer loss of property.
As for the cost to hospitals, If the government wants to pick up the tab, its up to them.
These two issues are completely seperate and there is no need to link the two.
Auto Ins is mandated to drive, which is a privilege. The prerequisite for having health care under this legislation is simply being alive.
A tax on being alive is justifiable?
I dont ing think so.
such a mandate really is the epitome of the type of tyranny our founding fathers were trying to escape...the type of oppressive government that wielded the power to enslave the population.
The scope of this power, if upheld, can be extended to bring the masses under the boot of the federal govts heel. That very possibility is supposed to be precluded under our cons ution.
Funny how this is so simple, yet so ungraspable for those who have come to see big govt as beneficial and necessary.
No not this. George is stupid. Check this link out.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...nce.html?cat=9
I suspect you're talking about Lopez and Morrison, but that same Court swung back in the other direction in Gonzales v. Reich. I might expect Scalia to abruptly reverse course, but not Kennedy, and he'll be the fifth vote if necessary. Also, I think Chief Justice Roberts, as willing as he's been to change other precedent, would have a hard time altering the fundamental understanding of the interstate commerce clause.
That makes a lot of sense actually, get the lay of the land.
translation: this issue is way above my head so i will find someone else's thoughts and use them to call someone else stupid..
The cynic in me keeps suggesting that pragmatism here is more about whether the composition of the Court will change (based on who might be President) and make a particular outcome for or against the legislation more likely.
Unfortunately now we are relegated to keeping score on SC justices.. right now it's 5-4 conservatives so most controversial cases will be 5-4..right along party lines. I know this is terrible to say but I REALLY hope we lose a righty before Obama leaves...
There's nothing that says 9 is magic.
Obama could appoint 2 progressives and win 6-5.
boutons, you ignorance is showing again.
"The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled uncons utional. The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70½."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia...n_Bill_of_1937
Not a new idea, but one that will never happen
as Roosevelt found out.
A judicial bill isn't the Cons ution, is it?
Never mind boutons. Congress would have to go along with
the expansion. And there isn't a snow ball in of getting
more Justices appoint.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
