Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money

Washington Examiner ^ | 06/02/11 | Philip Klein

[stevie_d_64]

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

[Talisker]

“During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.”

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0295_0495_ZO.html

I believe that in Schechter, the Commerce Clause was DENIED the power to compel action from a business. So I don't see the reason you're invoking it here - Schechter could actually be used AGAINST the individual mandate. In fact, Schechter was one of the limits the Roosevelt Administration finally reached in it's efforts to centralize commerce under federal law.

[Paladin2]

"I *NEED* a fleet of interstellar starships....."

Kool! I need that too!

[DaveTesla]

“Schechter could actually be used AGAINST the individual mandate”

That's why I posted it.
It should be.
The individual mandate violates the Tenth Amendment just as the Roosevelt Administration tried to do in Schechter.
The mandates are placed on small / medium sized businesses who operate solely intrastate.

[Gritty]

Hey, you! Yes, you,... Peasant!!

You don't like how we're destroying the Constitution?

Simple solution. Just use less of it, you swine...!

[stevie_d_64]

Because the people that follow this person are too stupid to understand anything beyond the government checks coming in their mailbox each month...

Conservatives just cain’t get enough of our people to get pizzed off enough to make a “real” difference in our elected bodies...2010 was an interesting start, but not enough...And we still have too many moderates in the ranks to be effective anyway...More work is needed...

We ain’t done yet...

[gogogodzilla]

Well, I’m kicking him out of Uranus...

:-P

[stevie_d_64]

Wait...Hang on...Now “who’s” anus are we talking about here???

I’m confused, but then again, I’ve had a couple of cold beers this early afernoon, and I don’t want to lose the buzz at this particular juncture...;-)