Skip to comments.
Day Two: Is the Mandate Constitutional?
Townhall.com ^
| March 27, 2012
| Kate Hicks
Posted on 03/27/2012 5:50:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
To: Kaslin
Wouldn’t a simpler, more powerful argument take advantage of the fact that the act’s administrators have seen fit to give exemptions to certain favored entities, and that the rest of us thus incur injury under equal protection statutes?
It certainly gives any of us standing to go before the court, and the exemptions themselves essentially refute the government’s arguments for establishing the mandate in the first place.
By arguing under equal protection the government would be forced to decide between NOT exempting the favored constituencies, or ditching the mandate. If the favored ones’ exemptions were rescinded, an unpopular law would become even more unpopular.
Maybe this should be our back-up plan if the mandate is upheld.
To: Kaslin
Roscoe Filburn was a wheat farmer, whose farm exceeded a production quota set by the government during the Great Depression. The whole thing fell apart when the gummint "set a production quota for wheat".
22
posted on
03/27/2012 6:38:59 AM PDT
by
USS Alaska
(Nuke the terrorists savages.)
To: Kaslin
the government hasnt been able to name a single limiting principle to this power when its been put on the spot Sadly, this is true of every law, agency and enforcement action. Even more sad, most laws don't get this kind of scrutiny.
23
posted on
03/27/2012 6:42:19 AM PDT
by
relictele
(We are officially OUT of other people's money!)
To: Kaslin
If the Supremes rule that,
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" gives Congress the power to compel United States citizens to purchase a product they do not want, then the United States of America is dead, and we should refer to ourselves as "subjects" of a tyrannical government, not as "citizens" of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We either have the rule of law or we are facing the rule of force. I'm not sure that limp-wristed liberals want to try to challenge real Americans with force.
We will lose if we base our argument on common law and federal codes that duress makes a contract invalid. The laws on duress specifically refer to "unlawful" actions that compel another to enter into a contract. Since ObamaCare is the law of the land, its threats that compel citizens to enter into a contract against their will are not technically duress. Under common law, one can be forced to enter into a harmful contract if the government uses a law as compulsion, and that government action does not qualify as duress that would void the contract. The real question is whether this legal compulsion is constitutional, and the answer is very clearly that this is far outside the proper scope of federal action authorized by the Commerce Clause.
Note: RomneyCare is constitutional within one state, since it is a state action rather than a federal action, and the MA constitution permits such actions. I will never again live in MA, both because of RomneyCare and because of their gun laws, but they have the right to pass a health insurance mandate if they so choose (their gun laws are a violation of the Second Amendment, but that's another discussion).
24
posted on
03/27/2012 7:02:32 AM PDT
by
Pollster1
(Can we afford as much government as welfare-addicted voters demand?)
To: Mr. K
"...I would like them to rule that my mandate to participate in social security is unconstitutional too.."
Alas, this is the part that bothers me the most. There is precedent, the SCOTUS ruled way back that SS mandate was OK.
I am worried even about our *conservative* justices seeing this, and deciding that Obamacare is OK, too...
25
posted on
03/27/2012 7:04:48 AM PDT
by
Victor
(If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
To: Kaslin
The defense against this point is, of course, that healthcare is "different,"
Yes, and that defense just grates on me. The constitution is not written to know about healthcare vs the carriage industry - it knows about power and jurisdiction. The fedguv either has jurisdiction to reach into our private lives and control our personal decisions, or it does not. I vote with the latter, but those days are long gone.
26
posted on
03/27/2012 8:00:04 AM PDT
by
andyk
(Go Juan Pablo!)
To: wayoverontheright
In a rational nation, food, shelter, education, and health care are NOT rights. No one has ANY right to ANYTHING for which someone else must pay.
27
posted on
03/27/2012 8:06:32 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
To: Kaslin
Interstate commerce clause grants Another example of the stupidity of the supporters of this law. Health Insurance is IN STATE commerce. You cannot buy it across state lines. You must buy it from a state approved Health insurance plan
28
posted on
03/27/2012 8:08:43 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
To: Kaslin
compelling national interest against the potential for abuse of power Really, really pathetic that supposed "Conservatives" are buying this Leftist BS.
There is NO compelling national interest in favor of Obama-care.
That claim is manufactured PR hype without a shred of rational, factual accuracy. The notion that Obama care is an attempt to "Control Heath care costs" is pure nonsense. It a manufacture lie being pushed to sell an unnecessary, blatant usurpation of individual liberty by the power mad progressive fascists in the political class.
29
posted on
03/27/2012 8:18:35 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
To: hoosiermama; STARWISE; maggief; MinuteGal; Liz; b9
30
posted on
03/27/2012 10:21:43 AM PDT
by
onyx
(SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
To: Georgia Girl 2
I think your right, but I am not sure. Striking the mandate down will open up an interesting can of worms.
31
posted on
03/27/2012 10:21:56 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: redgolum
The mandate pushes the commerce clause way beyond anything it was ever intended for. Striking it down should be a no brainer. If the government can force you to purchase health insurance it can force you to buy a Chevy Volt. There would be no end to it.
32
posted on
03/27/2012 12:06:24 PM PDT
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: Georgia Girl 2
Well, lets hope so. The individual mandate is crucial for funding reasons. Without it, the rest of the scheme can't be paid for without drastic politically suicidal measures. I have read too that the justices will have had their research done by now, and in oral argument they seek only to help clarify and write their opinions.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson