Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[dblack]

The Court found Obama-care constitutional under the power to tax for the general welfare. The clause is found in Article one, section eight, clause one.

The power to tax is not the same as the power to nationalize health insurance.

The sad thing about the Courts decision was that it reaffirmed the dangerous shift in our governance toward decidedely unequal protection. Roberts specifically cited the presumed legitimacy of government power to use discriminatory taxation as a means of coercing behavior - and this is where I believe the core err lies. Roberts saw that ruling against this kind of taxation on equal protection grounds would unravel a huge portion of the federal government's ill-gotten power, because pretty much every other 'tax incentive' is based on the same concept - that the government can arbitrarily dictate behavior and use discriminatory taxation as punishment. In my view, this does an end-run around the fundamental concepts of limited government and equal protection, but I guess, from the point of view of those eager to expand government, that's the point.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The power to tax is not the same as the power to nationalize health insurance.

The sad thing about the Courts decision was that it reaffirmed the dangerous shift in our governance toward decidedely unequal protection. Roberts specifically cited the presumed legitimacy of government power to use discriminatory taxation as a means of coercing behavior - and this is where I believe the core err lies. Roberts saw that ruling against this kind of taxation on equal protection grounds would unravel a huge portion of the federal government's ill-gotten power, because pretty much every other 'tax incentive' is based on the same concept - that the government can arbitrarily dictate behavior and use discriminatory taxation as punishment. In my view, this does an end-run around the fundamental concepts of limited government and equal protection, but I guess, from the point of view of those eager to expand government, that's the point.

Yes indeed, that's the point. The federal govt will just keep expanding until the states grow a pair and insist we adhere to the tenth amendment which says nearly every issue is a state, not federal, issue.

 

[Clementine]

Congress can tax us.
All revenue raising bills must pass the House.
Neither the president or congress can force us to participate in commerce.

Obama said Obamacare is not a tax. He had to say that because the House did not pass Obamacare and it would be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS ruled it legal strictly because Obama said it is a tax.

So, if it's a tax, it needs to be thrown out because the bill never got voted on by the House. They merely pulled a fast one and substituted the Obamacare bill for another one. Not allowed legally.

If it's not a tax, then SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional because we cannot be forced to purchase something.

...

[MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION]

It really doesn't matter what Obama said, as he was not the final judgement on what was constitutional regarding the PPACA -- or -- do you really want to take the stance that Obama is the final word on things?

You are willing to excuse his bold lies simply because he does not have final say. Gee, most people don't have final say, such as in court cases, but it's still wrong to lie and, in a perfect world, there are serious consequences for being a dishonest person. For a president to knowingly lie to the people over and over just to get his piece of shit signature legislation passed is unacceptable. Like other koolaid drinkers, you will excuse the worst behavior time and time again to toe the party line. Debate is pointless with some people because they are not willing to veer from what they are told by their master, regardless of facts. So, obey your messiah and remain in your benighted state. Just don't expect sympathy when you finally realize you've been had.

 

[Zona]

Hey, you lost. The ACA is going to happen.

Suck on that.

 

[dblack]

Hey, you lost. The ACA is going to happen.

Suck on that.

Sucking is a pretty good metaphor.

Being ass raped by the insurance industry is another. What's your preference?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Court found Obama-care constitutional under the power to tax for the general welfare. The clause is found in Article one, section eight, clause one.

The power to tax is not the same as the power to nationalize health insurance.

The sad thing about the Courts decision was that it reaffirmed the dangerous shift in our governance toward decidedely unequal protection. Roberts specifically cited the presumed legitimacy of government power to use discriminatory taxation as a means of coercing behavior - and this is where I believe the core err lies. Roberts saw that ruling against this kind of taxation on equal protection grounds would unravel a huge portion of the federal government's ill-gotten power, because pretty much every other 'tax incentive' is based on the same concept - that the government can arbitrarily dictate behavior and use discriminatory taxation as punishment. In my view, this does an end-run around the fundamental concepts of limited government and equal protection, but I guess, from the point of view of those eager to expand government, that's the point.

The problem with this is it’s fundamentally reactionary and completely ignores the doctrine of judicial review, perhaps intentionally.

How long must a given interpretive jurisprudence concerning the meaning of the Constitution be in existence before it is considered accepted and settled? 50 years? 100? 200? Dred Scott was nullified after ten years with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson was struck down after 58 years. Certainly after more than half a century we can consider jurisprudence still accepted as binding precedent to be proper, just, and an accurate interpretation of the Constitution and the Framers' original intent.

Consider that it’s been 76 years since the Court ended the Lochner Era’s dogma of ‘liberty to contract,’ ruling as Constitutional laws establishing a minimum wage and other workplace regulations. See: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). It’s been 71 years since the Court ruled as Constitutional Congress’ authority to regulate commerce, regardless its volume or how isolated the commercial activity might be. See: Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Indeed, subsequent conservative Courts have reaffirmed this very Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

It’s not as if Parrish or Wickard were decided last year; laws predicated on these rulings and their progeny have been subject to review by a series of Courts, both liberal and conservative, over the many decades, and reaffirmed time and again.

These rulings, and laws based on these rulings, aren’t going anywhere. They are the foundation of our modern industrialized society, and they are the foundation upon which our just and civil society is based – where working Americans are not mere chattel to be exhausted and discarded by their employers, but individuals entitled to the privileges and immunities guaranteed each person as a consequence of his humanity. This case law is the font of American’s greatness, and of its great success.

This is why your advocacy of discarding this vital Constitutional doctrine is reactionary, naïve, unjustified, unnecessary, and reckless.

The ACA was passed into law in accordance with the Constitution, it was subject to exhaustive judicial review, and as the High Court determined in NFIB v. Sebelius:

‘[T]he Court upholds the individual mandate as a proper exercise of Congress’ power to tax and spend “for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”’

Last, the ACA conforms with post-Lochner jurisprudence designed to supplement a modern and just society, where government may play a positive and important role ensuring society remains competitive yet not abusive to its citizens. This is not a situation where government ‘dictates’ or ‘mandates’ or ‘diminishes’ civil liberty, but where government maintains an appropriate level of human dignity for all its citizens so they might indeed be allowed to exercise their civil liberties free from the barbaric and brutish disabilities far too many Americans suffered prior to the Second Quarter of the 20th Century.

 

[idb]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

 

[dblack]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

The Constitution also embodies a system of checks and balances to prevent forcing radical change on the nation without a broad consensus. The Democrats have the support of the powerful lobbies that wrote the law, so its very unlikely the Republicans will hold out, but it will go a long way toward restoring my faith in our government if they do.

 

[freedombecki]

Republicans have a health care plan. They always have had it. It has two "phases":

Phase 1: Don't get sick.

Phase 2: If you get sick, die quickly.

Lair.

And you know it too, don't you.

 

[freedombecki]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

The only "lawful" thing about Obama care was stated by the SCOTUS. It said it was a tax, and as such, Congress is constitutionally able to pass a tax. It was intimated that certain parts of the 2700-page white paper would run into constitutional issues that would be dealt with as they came.

IOW the bill is loaded with crap.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

Your premise is inaccurate in that you believe laws existing laws are written in stone.
They are not.
And our constitution is written so that unpopular, non-applicable or unjust laws can be repealed or legislated out of existence by subsequent legislation..
If all laws were permanent, you'd not be able to take a drink and all of your female family members would not be able to cast a vote.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hey, you lost. The ACA is going to happen.

Suck on that.

No..55% of the population lost...They are the ones who will be paying for this while the remainder will have another straw to suck at the taxpayer tit.
No matter what happens this week, this fight is not over.
The ballot box is a weapon which we will use against you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

READ THE SUPREME COURT DECISION you stupid shithead

 

[idb]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

Your premise is inaccurate in that you believe laws existing laws are written in stone.
They are not.
And our constitution is written so that unpopular, non-applicable or unjust laws can be repealed or legislated out of existence by subsequent legislation..
If all laws were permanent, you'd not be able to take a drink and all of your female family members would not be able to cast a vote.

Exactly my point.
If the law is unpopular etc, then repeal it - use the system as it was intended.
Do you really think that using clauses in other essential and unrelated bills or legislation is legitimate?

 

[idb]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

The only "lawful" thing about Obama care was stated by the SCOTUS. It said it was a tax, and as such, Congress is constitutionally able to pass a tax. It was intimated that certain parts of the 2700-page white paper would run into constitutional issues that would be dealt with as they came.

IOW the bill is loaded with crap.

I thought it was no longer a Bill.

 

[idb]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

The Constitution also embodies a system of checks and balances to prevent forcing radical change on the nation without a broad consensus. The Democrats have the support of the powerful lobbies that wrote the law, so its very unlikely the Republicans will hold out, but it will go a long way toward restoring my faith in our government if they do.

Are you saying that the checks and balances haven't worked?
Are you saying that the Constitution is a failure?

 

[dblack]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

The Constitution also embodies a system of checks and balances to prevent forcing radical change on the nation without a broad consensus. The Democrats have the support of the powerful lobbies that wrote the law, so its very unlikely the Republicans will hold out, but it will go a long way toward restoring my faith in our government if they do.

Are you saying that the checks and balances haven't worked?
Are you saying that the Constitution is a failure?

It's a mixed bag. I'm saying that the Republicans pushing back on ACA is an example of the process. I'm also saying the President and his party were wrong to push through such a fundamental change on a slim, partisan majority.

 

[rightwinger]

Article 1 of the Constitution gives them that power

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just can't understand the thinking of the right wingers in congress that are going to try and block an enacted law.
The bill went through the process, was approved, and is now law.
That's the system set up by the constitution - like it or not.

Your premise is inaccurate in that you believe laws existing laws are written in stone.
They are not.
And our constitution is written so that unpopular, non-applicable or unjust laws can be repealed or legislated out of existence by subsequent legislation..
If all laws were permanent, you'd not be able to take a drink and all of your female family members would not be able to cast a vote.

Exactly my point.
If the law is unpopular etc, then repeal it - use the system as it was intended.
Do you really think that using clauses in other essential and unrelated bills or legislation is legitimate?

Legitimate? No. But parliamentary rules and motions have been used since the beginning in order to keep the majority from steamrolling the minority.
That's not to say rules have not changed or been adjusted.
For example, the Senate filibuster has not been in existence for a relatively long period of time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The SCOTUS deemed ACA a TAX....Had it decided ACA was commerce, the law would have been sent back to the drawing board.
If you read and understand Article 1 Section 8, it states specifically Congress has the power to 'regulate commerce'...Congress does not have the power to "create" commerce.

Furthermore, the whole idea that health care is "commerce" is ludicrous.

It is commerce.The mandate makes it commerce. Robert's opinion notwithstanding.
When there is a business transaction, there is commerce. A business transaction can be defined as a 'purchase'..The mandate deems that all persons not in the list of those exempt( prisoners, Indians, those on medicare/Caid) purchase a health insurance policy makes it commerce.
Where the loophole that Roberts decided it was a tax was that the purchase is NOT between the person buying and the government, but between the individual and a participating insurance carrier regulated by ACA.