Health Care Ruling Shows Judicial Activism Is Alive and Well -- and Living on the Rig

[Lonestar_logic]

Are you required to buy or drive a car? No?

Then you're not required to buy car insurance.

Damn you are one stupid child.

Again with the name calling. Obviously you have nothing of substance with which to respond, all you can do is call me names and hope that I'll just agree with you.

Oh and show me any legal statute that requires a drivers license and car insurance when driving on private property.

I'll wait.........

Actually, you should investigate whether there is a statutory exception to operating a car on private property, because you're the one who made that claim. There's alot of states, so I'll wait. In the meantime, you should also ask yourself why is it that being passed out in the driver's seat of a running car that's sitting in one's driveway can still cause a person to be charged with a DWI. And you should also consider what your chances are of getting out of a driving without insurance charge just because you're in the parking lot at Wal-Mart. That's usually private property, you know.

Grow up and answer my questions.

And the burden of proof is on you since you initiated the claim that one needs auto insurance to drive on private property.

 

[The T]

Two different issues. Driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Therefore, to enjoy said privilege, one must do certain things like get a license and have insurance.

Bearing arms is a constitutional right. That does not change the fact that the government has the right to also demand certain things from a citizen exercising that right. Such as buying permits, buying services like gun safety classes, etc. The question is not whether we're talking about privileges or rights. The question is whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

Government's ONLY interest here is to uphold the LIBERTY of the people,
period.

Bearing arms is also an enumerated right. And what part of the 2nd don't you understand here?

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.

The SCOTUS also bolstered it.

Concluding that citizens can own firearms for self-defence, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, reasoned that the framers of the Constitution regarded “the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

LINK

Supreme Court Declares That the Second Amendment
Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
-- June 26, 2008

 

[The Infidel]

The Commucrats seem to have a problem with The Constitution

 

[Cecilie1200]

he's law professor, something you are not. Asswipe.

Law professors are only impressive to people who've never met a law professor.

By the way, I've decided from now on to neg rep anyone I find who starts a thread based on the Huffington Post, just on general principle. Unfortunately, I don't rep much, and I need to spread some reputation around before I can deal with Flaylo here. So everyone in this thread who thinks he's an ignorant jackwagon can have some rep.

Law Professor's at college's ,are those that failed at the bar exams and could not become lawyers

College professors in general are among the most overrated people on the planet. The main reason that universities employ secretaries and administrative assistants is that their professors can't wipe their own asses without a diagram and instructions from Houston Control. Someone's gotta babysit them.

 

[boedicca]

Two different issues. Driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Therefore, to enjoy said privilege, one must do certain things like get a license and have insurance.

No where is the Federal government granted the right to force U.S. citizens to purchase a product; and assuming that "not doing" something is an activity covered by the Commerce Clause, is, well, a bit of a stretch, and so concluded the court. And I'm certain the SCOTUS will as well, probably 5 - 4.

ObamaCare gives the government the power to tax and fine breathing and heart beats.

It's the only government wealth and income seizing program that focused on merely being alive.

 

[geauxtohell]

LOL, you all sure don't call it Judicial Activism when the calls go for something you are for.

You really are a Progressive Useful tool, the Obama administration say this is judicial activism, and you jump to REPEAT IT and post it first.

I think the larger point is: that is the point exactly.

Judicial activism = anytime a judge does something a person disagrees with.

This is why the judicial branch is insulated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Car insurance is a little different. You're not technically forced to buy it. You're merely required to have it if you want to use public roads, like a driver's license. If, for example, you had a farm and a vehicle that you only ever drove on your farm - private property - the government wouldn't require you to have insurance on it.

And, of course, anyone who doesn't have a car is exempt from buying car insurance, as well.

No, it's not different. First, even driving a car on your private property requires a driver's license and insurance. It's more difficult to enforce if you only used the vehicle on your private property, because of 4th amendment rights. But operating a your vehicle on private property does not negate licensing or insurance laws.

Wrong.

It is common for farm families to have their children driving farm vehicles on the property to get chores done before they're old enough to qualify for driver's licenses, and they are not required so long as they stay off of public property. My uncle owns two large tobacco farms in Kentucky, and all of my cousins routinely drove as soon as they could reach the pedals and see out the windshield.

If you'd like to cite me a specific statute that proves me wrong, go ahead. But I doubt you can.

Second, the fact still remains that with car insurance, the government is forcing you to buy a product.

No, they aren't. You still have a choice about buying it. You can choose not to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Now, you might not LIKE that choice, but you DO have it. As I said, many people in this country get by perfectly happily without ever driving. The healthcare law does not offer any sort of choice at all.

While I do not support the healthcare bill in any way, the facts do not support the claim that it is unconstitutional. Government has an established history of requiring people to purchase various things, including insurance.

Again, you must learn to differentiate between federal and state government. The federal government is - theoretically, at least - constrained by the contents of the US Constitution. State governments, by way of the 9th and 10th Amendments, are not. While they cannot have laws that directly contradict the US Constitution, they can and do have the power to do things that the federal government cannot, because their job is quite different from the federal government's.

Hell, the government often requires a citizen to purchase permissions to build a fence on your own property in your back yard. The government can force you to buy permissions to keep a pet. The government can also force you to sell things, via eminent domain.

NOW we're onto county and city governments, which are even more different from the federal government than the state government is. Completely different jobs, completely different constraints. You DO realize that the US Constitution specifically states the powers of the federal government, to which it is then supposed to be limited? It doesn't state the powers of lower governments at all. There are other bodies of law for that job.

Fighting any public policy on faulty premises will not advance the matter. The best way to fight the healthcare bill is to continue pressing on the undesirability of the bill and the ways that it will place unwanted and unfair burdens on many people, particularly those who make less money.

And your faulty premise is that all governments are the same and interchangeable, and governed by exactly the same laws. You are very, very mistaken.

The healthcare law is Unconstitutional because it was passed by the federal government, and would be imposed and enforced by the federal government, the powers of which are laid out in the US Constitution, which contains no provision whatsoever for allowing the government to force people to purchase things.

The governments of the several states, and of the cities and counties in those states, are NOT constrained to the powers listed in the US Constitution, because they only apply to the federal government except where otherwise specified.

Try READING the frigging Constitution at least once before trying to argue it.

 

[gekaap]

Stupid is not a name it's a description and an accurate one in your case.

Well, since you want to play tomato/tomahto, I'll use different terminology: Your ad hominems do not establish anything and suggest that you are not capable of providing a reasonable response.

A flu shot offers protection but does not guarantee you will not get the flu. I know, facts are a bitch.

And what is your point? It's still a preventative measure that is used to prevent the likelihood that one will contract the illness. And this, in turn, prevents the likelihood of a person spreading the illness. The government doesn't require you to get a flu vaccine, but it does often require you to get vaccinated against things like polio, measles, mumps, and other diseases. The point in all of this is that the government requiring people to buy car insurance does not serve any greater interest in public safety than also exists in matters of health care.

No one made the claim that auto insurance prevents accidents. Your strawman failed.

You rebutted my arguments about government requiring people to buy car insurance by arguing that a flu shot will not prevent someone getting the flu. The ONLY way that could have been relevant would be for you to be implying that buying car insurance does suffice to prevent something. So if that was not your intention, then your comment was irrelevant. In either case, the end result is still the same, which is that you made an illogical argument.

The governments interest in this case is to strip away individual freedom and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

This is an emotional reaction on your part, and is devoid of any logical merit. If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that I said I am opposed to the health care bill. But my opposition and displeasure does not provide an ample reason for me to conclude that it is unconstitutional. While I tend to agree with the several court cases so far that have affirmed the constitutionality of the bill, I'm looking forward to higher courts to offer decisions with more authority. I haven't seen for myself any of the decisions, so that's all I can really do. As I've said already, fighting the health care bill on faulty reasoning will not be effective in defeating it.

 

[driveby]

Are you required to buy or drive a car? No?

Then you're not required to buy car insurance.

Damn you are one stupid child.

Again with the name calling. Obviously you have nothing of substance with which to respond, all you can do is call me names and hope that I'll just agree with you.

Oh and show me any legal statute that requires a drivers license and car insurance when driving on private property.

I'll wait.........

Actually, you should investigate whether there is a statutory exception to operating a car on private property, because you're the one who made that claim. There's alot of states, so I'll wait. In the meantime, you should also ask yourself why is it that being passed out in the driver's seat of a running car that's sitting in one's driveway can still cause a person to be charged with a DWI. And you should also consider what your chances are of getting out of a driving without insurance charge just because you're in the parking lot at Wal-Mart. That's usually private property, you know.

There is a fine for not buying health insurance with this new law. There is also a fine for not having auto insurance, but only if ????????........

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what do you think this country would look like if people could be refused emergency medical care because they could not pay?

I doubt they would be. I realize that nabobs of negativity on the left - like you - are convinced that their fellow men are all so evil and selfish and cruel that they would just ignore their less-fortunate neighbors if candidates for sainthood like you didn't come along and force them via the government to help out. Shockingly, though, you're not the only ones capable of compassion, and most of us can muster the REAL kind.

So you think no one would be refused medical care if there were no laws against it?

I think people, and the community at large, would find other ways to deal with it if they didn't have people like you barging in and playing Conscience of the Nation with the government strongarming everyone into co-operating, and in the process causing a lot of ill will and hard feelings, yeah.

Call me Pollyanna, but I have more faith in human beings than you do. I don't think they need Big Brother to force them to be good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Health insurance can equally be argued to be a public safety and liability issue. People without insurance are less likely to seek out health care when it is needed, which can contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. Seeking out health care at all could be seen as a public safety issue. I don't get flu shots, ever. It's my choice. But by not getting the flu shot I can potentially become a danger to anyone I pass as I walk down the street. The flu causes thousands of deaths every year. But somehow, I don't think that you would consider this enough to make a government mandate that everyone purchase a flu shot. That's because the constitutionality of the matter is not based on the fact that government is requiring a person to purchase a product. It is, instead, based on whether the policy presents and serves a legitimate government interest.

This is all very nice speculation, but I believe I'd like to see some hard evidence that 1) lack of health insurance is leading to a greater frequency of communicable disease outbreaks, and 2) that the provisions in this healthcare law will prevent that, to a high degree of certainty. I'm not big on making public policy based on the fevered daydreams of your imagination.

See, state laws requiring people to have liability coverage were instituted only after many years of hard evidence showing that people without insurance have a tendency to get into accidents and then leave their victims in the lurch financially.

Those who do seek out health care at whatever time, via emergency rooms, often will not pay their bills. This causes health care providers to lose money, and causes the prices on others to rise. Additionally, people without health insurance are less likely to seek out health care when they need it when infected with communicable illnesses. The government does have a legitimate interest in addressing these concerns.

There are other ways around this problem besides sticking innocent bystanders with the bill. I see no legitimate interest by the federal government in the debt collection of non-federal-government entities.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Health insurance can equally be argued to be a public safety and liability issue. People without insurance are less likely to seek out health care when it is needed, which can contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. Seeking out health care at all could be seen as a public safety issue. I don't get flu shots, ever. It's my choice. But by not getting the flu shot I can potentially become a danger to anyone I pass as I walk down the street. The flu causes thousands of deaths every year. But somehow, I don't think that you would consider this enough to make a government mandate that everyone purchase a flu shot. That's because the constitutionality of the matter is not based on the fact that government is requiring a person to purchase a product. It is, instead, based on whether the policy presents and serves a legitimate government interest.

Those who do seek out health care at whatever time, via emergency rooms, often will not pay their bills. This causes health care providers to lose money, and causes the prices on others to rise. Additionally, people without health insurance are less likely to seek out health care when they need it when infected with communicable illnesses. The government does have a legitimate interest in addressing these concerns.

Hey stupid, having health insurance and getting a flu shot will not keep you from getting the flu or spreading it to others. How old are you? Twelve?

I AM a bit curious as to how he thinks health insurance is going to keep him from getting the flu or passing it along. Did medical science come up with a cure for influenza while I wasn't looking?

 

[sitarro]

Who the HELL is ADAM WINKLER and why the hell are we suppose to give a shit what he says?

he's law professor, something you are not. Asswipe.

And something Obama is not/was not as well.

Hey Soggy, could you pick up a Shrimp Po-boy and send it to me in Houston? We can't get the real po-boy bread here.

 

[gekaap]

It is common for farm families to have their children driving farm vehicles on the property to get chores done before they're old enough to qualify for driver's licenses, and they are not required so long as they stay off of public property. My uncle owns two large tobacco farms in Kentucky, and all of my cousins routinely drove as soon as they could reach the pedals and see out the windshield.

Usually, there are statutory exceptions that allow farm equipment to be operated without a license. But the argument presented was that the exception exists based on alleged constitutional grounds of the government not having the constitutional authority to require insurance for vehicle use on private property.

If you'd like to cite me a specific statute that proves me wrong, go ahead. But I doubt you can.

It is not necessary to produce any statutory evidence on my part, because the argument is on of constitutional exception and applicability. Whether a state government can constitutionally require you to buy car insurance does not stop at private property. That is a statutory matter.

No, they aren't. You still have a choice about buying it. You can choose not to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Now, you might not LIKE that choice, but you DO have it. As I said, many people in this country get by perfectly happily without ever driving. The healthcare law does not offer any sort of choice at all.

On the other hand, there are areas in this country where not having your vehicular transportation makes it virtually impossible to survive. It all depends on the area and how things are organized. But that is really irrelevant, because the questions, as I've said so many times already, is whether a legitimate government interest in served by the law. The government has the right to require you to buy car insurance, because a legitimate government interest is served by such a law. Government has the right to require that you buy the services of gun safety classes in order to carry a gun in public, because a legitimate government interest is served.

Again, you must learn to differentiate between federal and state government. The federal government is - theoretically, at least - constrained by the contents of the US Constitution. State governments, by way of the 9th and 10th Amendments, are not.

This is completely untrue. The constitution explicitly proclaims itself to be the highest law of the land. State governments cannot violate your 1st amendment rights, for example. The "necessary and proper" clause extends broad powers to the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest. States are indeed limited by the US constitution. The specific enumerated powers of Congress and federal government are beyond the reach of what the states can do. The states have specific limitations placed on them by the constitution. Underlying the dual structure of government affirmed by the constitution is the fact that state laws cannot contradict those of federal law.

While they cannot have laws that directly contradict the US Constitution, they can and do have the power to do things that the federal government cannot, because their job is quite different from the federal government's.

And the federal government has powers to do things that states cannot. But that does not really apply here.

NOW we're onto county and city governments, which are even more different from the federal government than the state government is.

Not really. The constitution only recognizes one municipality, that being Washington D.C. Any subdivision of a state derives its power from that state, and for legal purposes is essentially nothing more than an extension of the state. Aside from that, the example I used is not one of municipal ordinances. The laws of my state prohibit me from owning a cheetah. And to be honest, there is not much of a legitimate interest in doing so because, contrary to common belief, cheetahs are not especially dangerous. They are actually less aggressive than dogs. But I don't want to derail the subject at hand, so I'll move onto the fact that I am talking about state laws that prevent me from owning a pet cheetah in my state, while other states (like Pennsylvania for example) will require not only that I by permits, but also that I buy veterinary services.

You DO realize that the US Constitution specifically states the powers of the federal government, to which it is then supposed to be limited?

Do YOU realize that the constitution also contains the "necessary and proper" clause? Do you realize that this clause grants the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest as they find necessary and proper?

The constitution does not explicitly give the federal government the power to build an interstate highway system. But I don't think that you would question the constitutionality of that act. It also does not explicitly grant Congress the power to assemble an Air Force. But I don't think you will challenge the constitutionality of that either. Also not found in the constitution is the explicitly granted power for the federal government to assign each citizen a number. But I don't think you will challenge the constitutionality of your SSN. Nor are the explicitly granted powers to identify a flag, declare holidays, purchase land, regulate railroads, or establish a minimum wage. But I don't expect to hear challenges to the constitutionality of those either.

It doesn't state the powers of lower governments at all. There are other bodies of law for that job.

While the states have the right, via their own constitutions, to define their own powers, that does not mean that the states have unlimited rights and powers. If the requirement to buy insurance was beyond the constitutional scope of the federal government's power over the people, it would also be beyond the scope of state powers over the people. Just like the constitution preserves states' rights, it also preserves individual rights, and that protection goes beyond the scope of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. States do not have the power to enact any law over the people unless it passes the same test as would be demanded of the federal government: whether there is a legitimate government interest being served.

And your faulty premise is that all governments are the same and interchangeable, and governed by exactly the same laws. You are very, very mistaken.

The mistake is on your part, to presume that people's constitutional rights are lessened by state powers, as compared to federal powers. The faulty premise is on your part; that the federal government has no power outside of that which is explicitly stated in the constitution, and that states have greater powers than the government, or that any special test applies to the states that make them less required for the constitution to apply to them. I have never said that all governments are interchangeable. I have only said that any infringement of the people's rights and the constitutionality thereof is treated equally when done by either state government or the federal government.

The healthcare law is Unconstitutional because it was passed by the federal government, and would be imposed and enforced by the federal government, the powers of which are laid out in the US Constitution, which contains no provision whatsoever for allowing the government to force people to purchase things.

And as I explained above, the constitution also contains no explicit provision for allowing the federal government to do many other things which are accepted as within its powers. Also, I know of no state whose constitution explicitly grants said state the power to require people to purchase things either. The same constitutional rights to privacy that protect a woman's abortion rights also would have to apply to other areas of health, which I've no doubt you will agree applies to state powers. But states still require that children be immunized against certain things before attending school.

The governments of the several states, and of the cities and counties in those states, are NOT constrained to the powers listed in the US Constitution, because they only apply to the federal government except where otherwise specified.

And when it comes down to it, the federal government is not really that constrained either, because the "necessary and proper" clause provides broad power to the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest. Providing for the general welfare and promoting public health is a legitimate government interest.

Try READING the frigging Constitution at least once before trying to argue it.

It would seem that you are the one who needs to learn about the constitution, because you are clearly ignorant of the basics of established constitutional law. Instead, you're arguing what you WANT the constitution to say, and are ignoring what is actually there.

 

[gekaap]

There is a fine for not buying health insurance with this new law. There is also a fine for not having auto insurance, but only if ????????........

Which is nothing more than a complaint on your part of a law that will require certain conduct on your part. But you not liking the law does not establish any constitutional problem.

 

[driveby]

There is a fine for not buying health insurance with this new law. There is also a fine for not having auto insurance, but only if ????????........

Which is nothing more than a complaint on your part of a law that will require certain conduct on your part. But you not liking the law does not establish any constitutional problem.

You and the democrats liking the law doesn't make it constitutional........

 

[boedicca]

There is a fine for not buying health insurance with this new law. There is also a fine for not having auto insurance, but only if ????????........

Which is nothing more than a complaint on your part of a law that will require certain conduct on your part. But you not liking the law does not establish any constitutional problem.

The proper conduct required by a Rule of Law is that which places prohibitions on harm to others (i.e., laws against theft, fraud, assault).

Not having health insurance is a personal decision. It's a pretty safe bet that you believe abortion should be legal based the government having no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body - yet you wish to see the government have control over all other aspects of our bodies.

Go figure.

 

[Bern80]

This is completely untrue. The constitution explicitly proclaims itself to be the highest law of the land. State governments cannot violate your 1st amendment rights, for example. The "necessary and proper" clause extends broad powers to the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest. States are indeed limited by the US constitution. The specific enumerated powers of Congress and federal government are beyond the reach of what the states can do. The states have specific limitations placed on them by the constitution. Underlying the dual structure of government affirmed by the constitution is the fact that state laws cannot contradict those of federal law.

Again you don't seem to understand how the constitution was written. It GRANTS powers and authority to the federal government. If it isn't explicitly stated what the fed can do then they can not do it. And tell people what they have to purchase is not there. The states may enact any laws they like that are not in direct violation of the constitution.

Do YOU realize that the constitution also contains the "necessary and proper" clause? Do you realize that this clause grants the federal government to serve any legitimate government interest as they find necessary and proper?

You have misinterpreted this clause as well. It does not give government power to do anything in its interest. it gives government the power to enact laws that are neccessary and proper for carrying out it's duties as SPECIFICALLY outlined by the constitution. That and the general welfare clause get butchered to no end by you libs who choose remain willfully obtuse to what the constitution actually says.

 

[driveby]

There is a fine for not buying health insurance with this new law. There is also a fine for not having auto insurance, but only if ????????........

Which is nothing more than a complaint on your part of a law that will require certain conduct on your part. But you not liking the law does not establish any constitutional problem.

The proper conduct required by a Rule of Law is that which places prohibitions on harm to others (i.e., laws against theft, fraud, assault).

Not having health insurance is a personal decision. It's a pretty safe bet that you believe abortion should be legal based the government having no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body - yet you wish to see the government have control over all other aspects of our bodies.

Go figure.

Damn, hate when that happens.......

 

[Avatar4321]

Judicial activism requires the judge act as a legislator. Striking down an unconstitutional law doesnt require the judge act as a legislator. striking down parts while recrafting the bill would. Creating new laws that didnt exist before that point would. But neither are applicable at this point in time.

Obamacare is illegal. Get used to it.