Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That wasn't under the commerce clause, fail.......
No, you fail. I never said it was under the commerce clause.
If they made any REAL or MEANINGFUL concessoins they would have got republican votes, yet they got none. Actions speak louder than words
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you seen Congress lately? They're all a bunch of toddlers. Either they get everything they want, or no deal. You can't even depend on Republicans to support a tax reduction nowadays.
Is that law still considered constitutional and on the books as active or was it rescinded?
I'll answer any question you ask that is relevant to what I was saying. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the government to be able to force citizens to buy anything whatsoever. I provided an example of the founders doing just that.
To be fair you never did say it was under the commerce clause. However obamacare, the thing where this discussion originated from, tries to use the commerce clause to force private citizens to buy a product from a private company.
This is not constitutional.
Your defense is weak... The Act you linked to was in certain emergency situations AND was limited to two years...To be fair you never did say it was under the commerce clause. However obamacare, the thing where this discussion originated from, tries to use the commerce clause to force private citizens to buy a product from a private company.
This is not constitutional.
I understand that. I was just trying to point out the silliness of the arguments that invoke the founding fathers to suggest the "absolutely horrible neofascist socialist evil" individual mandate is some kind of monumentally egregious exercise of power that the founding fathers would have taken up arms in revolt of the government against. The government under the founding fathers obviously did not see any problem with mandating individuals to buy certain goods, if that mandate would further the cause of a legitimate government interest, like arming the militia and providing for the national defense.
So, the question is not about the government forcing people to buy something, generally speaking. The founders seemed to have no objection to such a requirement as an exercise of the militia clause. The question is whether such power is permissible as an exercise of the commerce clause also.
Your defense is weak... The Act you linked to was in certain emergency situations AND was limited to two years...To be fair you never did say it was under the commerce clause. However obamacare, the thing where this discussion originated from, tries to use the commerce clause to force private citizens to buy a product from a private company.
This is not constitutional.
I understand that. I was just trying to point out the silliness of the arguments that invoke the founding fathers to suggest the "absolutely horrible neofascist socialist evil" individual mandate is some kind of monumentally egregious exercise of power that the founding fathers would have taken up arms in revolt of the government against. The government under the founding fathers obviously did not see any problem with mandating individuals to buy certain goods, if that mandate would further the cause of a legitimate government interest, like arming the militia and providing for the national defense.
So, the question is not about the government forcing people to buy something, generally speaking. The founders seemed to have no objection to such a requirement as an exercise of the militia clause. The question is whether such power is permissible as an exercise of the commerce clause also.
They DID have objection to it, as it was limited to 2 years from the time it was enacted and was only to be done in an emergency...
You should have read your link...
Give up the fail... You tried, but lost....
Your defense is weak...
They DID have objection to it, as it was limited to 2 years from the time it was enacted and was only to be done in an emergency...
The Affordable Care Act wasn't just chock full of concession to Republicans, it was practically the plan they introduced in 1993. For example:
- Universal access to health insurance coverage, in part through premium assistance to low-income individuals who don't quality for Medicaid (ultimately up to 240% of the federal poverty line)
- A mandate on employers to provide health insurance plans to employees
- Requirements for qualified heath plans to meet standards of
- guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage
- nondiscrimination based on health status (i.e. eliminating pre-existing conditions)
- benefits offered
- insurer financial solvency
- enrollment process
- premium rating limitations (allowing variation in premiums based only on age and family)
- risk adjustment
- consumer protection
- The formation of individual and small employer purchasing groups
- Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, establish standards for large employer plans similar to requirements applicable to small employer plans
- Formation of a Benefits Commission to develop a standard (minimum) benefits package that any qualified health benefits plan must offer
- Enumeration of state responsibilities in implementing state insurance market reforms
- An individual mandate requiring all citizens to be covered by a health plan
- Certain alterations to tax law, including an excise tax for excess contributions to medical care savings accounts
- Quality assurance programs, including the creation of a national health data system
- Medical liability reform, including a requirement that states adopt an alternative dispute resolution method for the resolution of health care malpractice claims
- Efforts to fight fraud and abuse in federal health programs
- Efforts to bolster the primary care workforce
Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993
The bill was introduced by Republican John Chafee and counted Republican Senate Minority leader Bob Dole among its co-sponsors, as well as several Republican Senators ; Kit Bond, Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley.
Who was being forced to buy Farmer Roscoe's wheat?
I think you misunderstand. The case was decided against the farmer on account of the fact that by growing his own wheat, the farmer was not engaging in commerce, and that such lack of participation in commerce had the ability to affect interstate commerce if many people were to similarly fail to engage in commerce. While Filburn's actions in and of themselves would probably have had an infintesimal effect on interstate commerce, the aggregate effect of many people doing the same thing could be substantial. Thus, it was within Congress' power to regulate what Filburn could grow on his farm for personal consumption, in order to force him to instead buy from the market and thus engage in commerce.
The court also explains: "But even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
Who was being forced to buy Farmer Roscoe's wheat?
I think you misunderstand. The case was decided against the farmer on account of the fact that by growing his own wheat, the farmer was not engaging in commerce, and that such lack of participation in commerce had the ability to affect interstate commerce if many people were to similarly fail to engage in commerce. While Filburn's actions in and of themselves would probably have had an infintesimal effect on interstate commerce, the aggregate effect of many people doing the same thing could be substantial. Thus, it was within Congress' power to regulate what Filburn could grow on his farm for personal consumption, in order to force him to instead buy from the market and thus engage in commerce.
The court also explains: "But even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
What percent of our GDP is Health Care?
Already did. I provided a list of the items that were in the Republican answer to Hillarycare. Do the provisions in that Bob Dole bill look at all familiar?
The tons of Republican ideas that were put into the ACA served to entice the Blue Dog Democrats, the conservatives in the Democratic Party. They were all taken straight from Bob Dole's plan.
Why would you think a few concessions to blue dog democrats, despite whose idea it was in the 90s, be enough to sway republicans to the 2700+ page administrative nightmare known as 0bamacare?
That isn't logical...
What isn't logical is the Republican intransigence on every issue. They walked into the Health Care debates knowing they weren't going to vote for anything that was introduced no matter what...including a health care plan they cooked up in the 90s.
Nobody, of course. But he is actively engaged in commerce as he markets his poultry and other livestock which feeds off his wheat - which is the raw material of his commercial endeavor.
This is different than forcing somebody NOT engaged in commerce to actively engage in commerce for the purpose of regulating it.
Hope that helps.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to have read the case, because that's not at all the rationale that the court applied. The power to regulate commerce does not exist through regulation of indirect commerce, as the court long maintained prior to this case. Thus, there is no power to regulate Filburn's wheat production on account of the fact that the wheat was used for the production of chicken, which then enter the market. The power exists based on the ability of the activity to have an aggregate effect on commerce. As the decision explains:
The maintenance by government regulation of a price for wheat undoubtedly can be accomplished as effectively by sustaining or increasing the demand as by limiting the supply. The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent, as well, to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs.
Your theory would mean that if Filburn was growing wheat on his farm for no other reason than to feed his chickens, which themselves were grown for no other reason than to feed himself, or even to be kept as pets, then the court would have ruled against him. However, the court did not even bother to take into consideration the purpose he kept chickens. Instead, the court focused on how his activity usurped his participation in the wheat market, and the fact that such activity could effect the wheat market if many people started doing the same thing.
The founders never meant for an overbearing government to force the citizens into buying anything.
You mean like forcing citizens to buy guns?
The founders never meant for an overbearing government to force the citizens into buying anything.
You mean like forcing citizens to buy guns?
That wasn't under the commerce clause, fail.......
It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.
One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.
The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)
The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.
But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.
This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn
Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.
Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?
So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.
This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.
It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.
One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.
The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)
The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.
But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.
This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn
Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.
Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?
So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.
This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.
Dumb ass if the federal government can mandates that you buy something what separates us from a communist country?
it didn't pass constitutional muster then, but then again FDR had just threatened recently to pack the court till he got what he wanted out of them regardless of constitutionality and was sick of the court shutting down his little progressive utopian programs because that silly little constitution got in the way of a good tyrannical run.It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.
One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.
The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)
The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.
But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.
This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn
Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.
Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?
So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.
This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.
It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.
One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.
The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)
The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.
But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.
This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn
Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.
Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?
So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.
This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.
Tell me something, why do people pretend they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't?
Filburn was engaging in interstate commerce. The wheat he grew was used to feed his cattle, not for personal consumption, and his cattle was sold on the interstate market. Personally, I hate the decision, and think it should be overturned, but I at least know the facts. If you want to defend it you should know them also.
