Health Care Reform is Not Unconstitutional

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/24/health-care-reform-unconstitutional/?page=1

The main points:

1.

"the Court has repeatedly made clear that Congress can regulate any economic activity, and even noneconomic activity where doing so is "an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity.""

2.

"As a practical matter, there is no opting out of the health care market, since everyone eventually needs medical treatment, and very few can afford to pay their way when the time comes. (Those who refuse all medical treatment for religious scruples are an exception, but they are exempt from the mandate.) That one might affix the label "inactivity" to a decision to shift one's own costs to others does not negate the fact that such economic decisions have substantial effects on the insurance market, and that their regulation is "an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity.""

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

The constitution?

When has that been involved in American politics? I can't remember a time......

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

ChaelaMcchubble

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

ChaelaMcchubble

You would be for hospitals having the option to provide care to uninsured people, to stop free-riding, correct?

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

raynimrod

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

I live in Arizona the they give helth care to people who need it. If it wasent for the fact that Arizona has this option my father would be dead. We need some form of universal helth care and i ok with it.

I'm sorry but it's 100% unconstitutional. To force people to buy health care for themselves or else fine them or put them in jail IS WAY BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION.VintageClock

Did you even read what I posted?

This quote doesn't have anything to do with forcing someone to buy something. It has only to do with whether or not something can be regulated. You have to use the right side of the rode, but you don't have to use the road. It is trying to say that because someones doings may effect an industry, and because the industry is legally regulated, that someones doings can be regulated as well. If this is constitutional, then the government has no limits. They can regulate every aspect of your life and you have absolutely no say in it because you can't opt out. This system will not last long.

I'm sorry but it's 100% unconstitutional. To force people to buy health care for themselves or else fine them or put them in jail IS WAY BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION.VintageClock

On the topic. It will be declared unconstitutional:

• Roberts
• Alito
• Thomas
• Scaila
• AND *drum roll* Kennedy

Those 5 will go against it...

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

superfluidity

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

No, the commerce clause is explicit. It grants congress the power to... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Among the several states does not mean citizens within the states. If the founders wanted to grant Congress the power to regulate all foreign and domestic commerce, the clause would have said something like "[the power to] regulate all commerce". The fact that the founders explicitly listed three different types of commerce indicates that not all commerce is covered, namely the commerce within a state by its people.

Also, regardless of what your definition of regulate is, we are referring to the language of the constituion, which is the only thing that matters here.

The word "regulate" or "regulations" is mentioned eleven times in the constituion, and every time the word regulate means "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)".

Let me give you two examples:

Article 1, section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Article 1, section 8: The congress [has the power to]"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;"

The power to regulate or facilitate elections is not the power to prohibit them, or mandate the people vote in said elections.

The power to regulate money is not the power to mandate the people have it, or to prohibit people from having it.

This quote doesn't have anything to do with forcing someone to buy something. It has only to do with whether or not something can be regulated. You have to use the right side of the rode, but you don't have to use the road. It is trying to say that because someones doings may effect an industry, and because the industry is legally regulated, that someones doings can be regulated as well. If this is constitutional, then the government has no limits. They can regulate every aspect of your life and you have absolutely no say in it because you can't opt out. This system will not last long.

hoola

What I said about the road was just to explain to Raynimrod that "mandating" something is a form of regulation, this has no other relevance to the topic at hand.

The commerce clause does have specific limits that have been clarified by the supreme court and the article I linked actually adresses what you just said about this seemingly giving congress unlimited power.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

raynimrod

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

No, the commerce clause is explicit. It grants congress the power to... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Among the several states does not mean citizens within the states. If the founders wanted to grant Congress the power to regulate all foreign and domestic commerce, the clause would have said something like "[the power to] regulate all commerce". The fact that the founders explicitly listed three different types of commerce indicates that not all commerce is covered, namely the commerce within a state by its people.

Also, regardless of what your definition of regulate is, we are referring to the language of the constituion, which is the only thing that matters here.

The word "regulate" or "regulations" is mentioned eleven times in the constituion, and every time the word regulate means "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)".

Let me give you two examples:

Article 1, section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Article 1, section 8: The congress [has the power to]"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;"

The power to regulate or facilitate elections is not the power to prohibit them, or mandate the people vote in said elections.

The power to regulate money is not the power to mandate the people have it, or to prohibit people from having it.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

DroidPhysX

No, the commerce clause is explicit. It grants congress the power to... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Among the several states does not mean citizens within the states. If the founders wanted to grant Congress the power to regulate all foreign and domestic commerce, the clause would have said something like "[the power to] regulate all commerce". The fact that the founders explicitly listed three different types of commerce indicates that not all commerce is covered, namely the commerce within a state by its people.

Also, regardless of what your definition of regulate is, we are referring to the language of the constituion, which is the only thing that matters here.

The word "regulate" or "regulations" is mentioned eleven times in the constituion, and every time the word regulate means "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)".

Let me give you two examples:

Article 1, section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Article 1, section 8: The congress [has the power to]"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;"

The power to regulate or facilitate elections is not the power to prohibit them, or mandate the people vote in said elections.

The power to regulate money is not the power to mandate the people have it, or to prohibit people from having it.

It doesn't, but the constituion reserves all unenumerated powers to the states. Because it isn't mentioned in the constitution, states can make their own laws about it.

No, the commerce clause is explicit. It grants congress the power to... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Among the several states does not mean citizens within the states. If the founders wanted to grant Congress the power to regulate all foreign and domestic commerce, the clause would have said something like "[the power to] regulate all commerce". The fact that the founders explicitly listed three different types of commerce indicates that not all commerce is covered, namely the commerce within a state by its people.

Also, regardless of what your definition of regulate is, we are referring to the language of the constituion, which is the only thing that matters here.

The word "regulate" or "regulations" is mentioned eleven times in the constituion, and every time the word regulate means "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)".

Let me give you two examples:

Article 1, section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Article 1, section 8: The congress [has the power to]"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;"

The power to regulate or facilitate elections is not the power to prohibit them, or mandate the people vote in said elections.

The power to regulate money is not the power to mandate the people have it, or to prohibit people from having it.

raynimrod

You seem to be focusing on the definition of the word word mandate when I'm not sure that the health care bill even includes that word. Either way, all regulations are mandates. To mandate something is to force something, command it, etc. I don't see how this is relevant to anything.

To your point about the commerce clause, what you've stated about whether congress can regulate the "citizens within the states" is a fairly basic matter in constitutional law. Of course it can. It does and has since the founding of the nation.

Virtually all forms of commerce cross state lines in one way or another, but even if some obscure form of commerce occured that did not cross state boundaries, it would still have an impact on commerce that did, and the supreme court has given congress the authority to regulate such commerce.

Who cares what the constitution says? Surely what matters is whether the reform is for the good of America... If it is, do it. If not, don't.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

raynimrod

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

No, the commerce clause is explicit. It grants congress the power to... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Among the several states does not mean citizens within the states. If the founders wanted to grant Congress the power to regulate all foreign and domestic commerce, the clause would have said something like "[the power to] regulate all commerce". The fact that the founders explicitly listed three different types of commerce indicates that not all commerce is covered, namely the commerce within a state by its people.

Also, regardless of what your definition of regulate is, we are referring to the language of the constituion, which is the only thing that matters here.

The word "regulate" or "regulations" is mentioned eleven times in the constituion, and every time the word regulate means "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)".

Let me give you two examples:

Article 1, section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Article 1, section 8: The congress [has the power to]"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;"

The power to regulate or facilitate elections is not the power to prohibit them, or mandate the people vote in said elections.

The power to regulate money is not the power to mandate the people have it, or to prohibit people from having it.

Have you ever taken a class on US government? If you have, you should understand that the supreme court has used interstate commerce to deem all sorts of things constitutional over the past century. It's their way of passing whatever the hell they want.

You seem to be focusing on the definition of the word word mandate when I'm not sure that the health care bill even includes that word. Either way, all regulations are mandates. To mandate something is to force something, command it, etc. I don't see how this is relevant to anything. superfluidity

Are you aware that the healthcare bill will require/force/mandate that people buy health insurance? I don't know about you, but I see this as relevant.

And no, regulations aren't mandates, they are forms of control and structure. As I said, "regulate" it doesn't mean "to mandate" in the context of the Constitution.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does this mean that the Congress has the power to mandate or prohibit a militia? No, of course not. In the constitution, regulate does not equal mandate.

To your point about the commerce clause, what you've stated about whether congress can regulate the "citizens within the states" is a fairly basic matter in constitutional law. Of course it can. It does and has since the founding of the nation.superfluidity

No, you're still yet to show where the constituion grants that explicit power.

Virtually all forms of commerce cross state lines in one way or another, but even if some obscure form of commerce occured that did not cross state boundaries, it would still have an impact on commerce that did, and the supreme court has given congress the authority to regulate such commerce.

superfluidity

Again, the Constituion doesn't grant power to Congress to regulate the commerce of the people within a state, only the power to regulate commerce among the states. Feel free to show me where the SCOTUS has given congress the power to regulate the commerce of the people within a state. Any such regulation is to be handled by the states.

Have you ever taken a class on US government? If you have, you should understand that the supreme court has used interstate commerce to deem all sorts of things constitutional over the past century. It's their way of passing whatever the hell they want.

kussese

No I haven't, but I know that shady things can go down that way. And I'm always open to people providing evidence that what I'm saying is in theory, incorrect. Let's not forget how the SCOTUS is appointed in the first place... two branches of government that should be completely independent, somehow meet in the middle at the highest level. Doesn't seem right to me.

Are you aware that the healthcare bill will require/force/mandate that people buy health insurance? I don't know about you, but I see this as relevant.

And no, regulations aren't mandates, they are forms of control and structure. As I said, "regulate" it doesn't mean "to mandate" in the context of the Constitution.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does this mean that the Congress has the power to mandate or prohibit a militia? No, of course not. In the constitution, regulate does not equal mandate.

raynimrod

Literally any law in any country is something that is forced upon people or mandated by the government. I cannot legally steal because I am mandated/forced/commanded/required not to.

The issue being raised by conservatives is that people are being compelled to engage in commerce against their will, you seem to be confusing this with a fight over the definition of the word regulation.

No, you're still yet to show where the constituion grants that explicit power.

raynimrod

The Commerce Clause. This is what is routinely used to regulated anything and everything that is bought and sold, or has an affect on what is bought and sold, within U.S. borders. Its specific functions have been clarified by the supreme court. I don't know what else to say.

Again, the Constituion doesn't grant power to Congress to regulate the commerce of the people within a state, only the power to regulate commerce among the states. Feel free to show me where the SCOTUS has given congress the power to regulate the commerce of the people within a state. Any such regulation is to be handled by the states.

raynimrod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

"because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Who cares what the constitution says? Surely what matters is whether the reform is for the good of America... If it is, do it. If not, don't.Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Who cares what the constitution says? Surely what matters is whether the reform is for the good of America... If it is, do it. If not, don't.Omni-Slash

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

raynimrod

Literally any law in any country is something that is forced upon people or mandated by the government. I cannot legally steal because I am mandated/forced/commanded/required not to. superfluidity

Correct. These are called laws, right? Not regulations - which is my point.

The issue being raised by conservatives is that people are being compelled to engage in commerce against their will, you seem to be confusing this with a fight over the definition of the word regulation.superfluidity

The healthcare reform will require citizens to purchase healthcare. The "against their will" part is irrelevant to the constituion. The matter at hand that I'm talking about is simply that the constituion doesn't grant congress the power to do the above. That is, "require citizens to purchase".

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

No, you're still yet to show where the constituion grants that explicit power.

superfluidity

The Commerce Clause. This is what is routinely used to regulated anything and everything that is bought and sold, or has an affect on what is bought and sold, within U.S. borders. Its specific functions have been clarified by the supreme court. I don't know what else to say.

I've already shown you what the commerce clause says, and it doesn't explicitly refer to regulating the commerce of a state's citizens. In fact, the clause explicitly lists the three types of commerce that congress has the power to regulate, suggesting that it doesn't cover "all" commerce, namely that of the people. I want you to show me where its specific functions have been clarified by the supreme court, which I'm hoping is what you've done with the links you presented, for which I thank you.

Also, you haven't addressed any of my points about the context of the constituion and how at no point the word regulate means to mandate, force, or require.

Who cares about the constitution! It was written by racist ol' white men. People can't buy alcohol every day and then pay for a liver transplant. jeez, These are problems poor americans are suffering from and nobody is paying attention.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

weezyfb

One of the unenumerated powers reserved for the states as addressed in the constituion.

/thread.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

weezyfb

Correct. These are called laws, right? Not regulations - which is my point.

raynimrod

A regulation is a law.

The healthcare reform will require citizens to purchase healthcare. The "against their will" part is irrelevant to the constituion. The matter at hand that I'm talking about is simply that the constituion doesn't grant congress the power to do the above. That is, "require citizens to purchase".

raynimrod

I'm glad we're actually on the same page, at last.

I've already shown you what the commerce clause says, and it doesn't explicitly refer to regulating the commerce of a state's citizens. In fact, the clause explicitly lists the three types of commerce that congress has the power to regulate, suggesting that it doesn't cover "all" commerce, namely that of the people. I want you to show me where its specific functions have been clarified by the supreme court, which I'm hoping is what you've done with the links you presented, for which I thank you.

Also, you haven't addressed any of my points about the context of the constituion and how at no point the word regulate means to mandate, force, or require.

raynimrod

You ignored my links to cases precisely showing that the supreme court has granted congress the authority to regulate all commerce.

The word regulate includes the idea of mandating, forcing, etc. Do I need to link dictionary definitions?

[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

raynimrod

One of the unenumerated powers reserved for the states as addressed in the constituion.

/thread.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Who cares what the constitution says? Surely what matters is whether the reform is for the good of America... If it is, do it. If not, don't.Acemaster27

Only a fool would choose to live under the Rule of Order over the Rule of Law.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

raynimrod

One of the unenumerated powers reserved for the states as addressed in the constituion.

/thread.

A regulation is a law.superfluidity

No it isn't, not even by definition.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I've already shown you what the commerce clause says, and it doesn't explicitly refer to regulating the commerce of a state's citizens. In fact, the clause explicitly lists the three types of commerce that congress has the power to regulate, suggesting that it doesn't cover "all" commerce, namely that of the people. I want you to show me where its specific functions have been clarified by the supreme court, which I'm hoping is what you've done with the links you presented, for which I thank you.

Also, you haven't addressed any of my points about the context of the constituion and how at no point the word regulate means to mandate, force, or require.

superfluidity

You ignored my links to cases precisely showing that the supreme court has granted congress the authority to regulate all commerce.

No I didn't, please read the bolded part above. I haven't gotten to reading it yet, because you haven't been specific - you gave ma a whole bloddy case to read through -_-.

The word regulate includes the idea of mandating, forcing, etc. Do I need to link dictionary definitions?

superfluidity

Not in the context of the constituion - it doesn't, and this is my point! In the constituion, its meaning is always "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)". Read each article in which the word "regulate" or "regulations" appears, they're mentioned eleven times.

there have been exceptions in which congress has done so weezyfb

In which congress has done so what?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="weezyfb"] car insurance /thread-Sun_Tzu-

The difference is, that the constitution provides powers for Congress to levy an apportioned tax among the people, and that requiring people to pay taxes to the government is NOT the same as forcing people to purchase a service from a private company.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="weezyfb"] car insurance /threadTheokhoth

One of the unenumerated powers reserved for the states as addressed in the constituion.

/thread.

But the federal government doesn't mandate the purchase of car insurance, the states do.

So you would deny what's best for america because our 200 year old document doesn't say anything about it?Acemaster27

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Is not mandated by Congress as something a citizen MUST purchase.raynimrod

The difference is, that the constitution provides powers for Congress to levy an apportioned tax among the people, and that requiring people to pay taxes to the government is NOT the same as forcing people to purchase a service from a private company.

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

ChaelaMcchubble

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] What's the difference between being mandated to get health insurance and being mandated to pay medicare taxes, social security taxes, or taxes in general? In both cases you are being forced to pay for a service.-Sun_Tzu-

The difference is, that the constitution provides powers for Congress to levy an apportioned tax among the people, and that requiring people to pay taxes to the government is NOT the same as forcing people to purchase a service from a private company.

Yes, they operate in the same manner. In both cases people are required to spend money - I'm not disputing that.

The constituion provides power for the congress to levy taxes. It does not provide power for congress to mandate the purchase of goods and services from private companies.

This is the only issue here.