The federal government does not have unlimited powers, restricted only where the constitution says it is restricted. The constitution insteads gives powers to the federal government. The argument is that nowhere is this power given to the federal government, hence it is unconstitutional.
The judge in Florida ruled that the insurance purchasing requirement violates the constitution’s Commerce Clause. Exactly how wasn’t explained in any of the articles I’ve read.
That it is Constitutional by the Commerce Clause and the federal governement’s consitutional authority to “lay and collect” taxes.
BUt it’s not a tax. Obama was quite clear on that several times, particularly in his interview with George Stephanopolous.
But can you explain the Commerce Clause reasoning (ignoring the fact that a judge ruled against that argument).
There are hundreds of court cases out there (I was reading a bunch of them last week) where courts will say they look beyond what someone calls something. Seriously, do you think if the President turned round and said income tax wasn’t a tax, the court system would be bound by the declaration?
There may well be very good reasons this isn’t going to be seen as a tax, but your repeated “Obama said it wasn’t” carries about as much legal clout as, well, something without any legal clout at all.
The argument would be that this is not substantively different from the Wickard situation - and yes, I know you don’t agree with it, so no need to post “but Wickard didn’t make someone buy something.” Then again, its Pavlovian by now, so have at it, hoss.
Well, the fact that he ruled against that is why I am saying it wil be overturned, because I disagree. Health care, being 17% of the entire GDP of our country and clearly interstate commerce can therefore be regulated and taxed by the Federal government.
It’s clearly not a tax, per se. Taxes are paid directly to the government and are affected by certain laws and exemptions that have a bearing on how much is due, and within those parameters everybody pays the same rate. Payments demanded under the heath care law do not go directly to the federal government and the amounts individual citizens pay for coverage will vary enormously.
The government has never before been able to force people to spend their private money to purchase government-mandated goods or services. As South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said, such power on the part of the federal government could just as easily allow the government to mandate that people sign contracts with their local gyms so as to cause them to lose weight and lower their cholesterol.
We do not need to be giving the federal government power to force us to obey its will. The government’s role is to collect taxes and spend them for the public good. Its role is not to issue proclamations as to how we are to spend our private money or what we are to spend it on.
The federal government makes you buy social security, enforces a minimum wage, enforces ADA regulations, there are plenty of examples of the federal government mandating things. In my opinon, the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling.
The only one that comes close is SS, but you don’t “buy” it. You contribute to it and at some point you get your money back. Or so the idea was.
I, and others, have posted this in I-don’t-know-how-many threads since this debate began over a year ago:
The federal government does not require you to buy auto insurance. When you can find a situation where the federal government requires you to buy something from a private agency, then you’ll have an analogy. Until then, no. What the states do is not an analogy. It’s what we call a “bad analogy”.
The Price Anderson Act is federal legislation that, in part, requires owners and operators of nuclear power plants to purchase insurance.
Would this make for a valid analogy?
Nope. Don’t want to pay the insurance? Don’t own or operate a nuclear power plant. Easy.
No, because once again someone has to be doing something that requires regulation. If the nuclear power plant operators ceased to operate their plants, closed them up and turned in the nuclear material they would no longer be required to carry the insurance.
For this fee (and potential sanctions) to be applicable to me, it requires nothing on my behalf but breathing, and applies until I stop breathing.
So just to be clear, Airman and Magellan, if I understand your objection correctly, the two of you would agree that it would be fully and unremarkably constitutional for the federal government to require everyone to purchase auto insurance, if they own an automobile?
Not that, either. There is no such thing as a federal driving privilege (outside of the military). Licensing is left to the states constitutionally.
However, nuclear power is not a state issue, it is a federal one. The NRC is well within its rights to demand that the operator carry insurance, as long as they are operating. Once they cease that the fees cease.
With Obamacare (a term I hate, but there it is), the fees are imposed without you doing anything at all, do not cease until you’re dead, and you can go to jail for not paying it. It is therefore a tax, not a fee.
To repost from another thread (dunno how I missed this one; I think it’s because the topic is a little vague), this Atlantic bit argues that any side’s reaction to this ruling is probably overblown.
(And that two Supreme Court justices have already made up their minds on this case, but I don’t think that’s nearly as big a surprise as the writer thinks it is.)
I think not. You’re alluding to another prong of the problem. The feds powers are enumerated, meaning that if a power is not explicitly granted top them by the Constitution they do not have it. The power in question then resides with the states. So, the states could do what you suggest, and do. But not the feds.
So, since the ability of the federal government to require nuclear plants to buy insurance isn’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, it should be found unconstitutional?
Or would you take the stance that the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause grant that right to the feds?
Nuclear power plants fall under the supervision of federal agencies, so it seems logical that a federal authority would oversee insurance and the like.
But that brings us back to where we started, don’t want to pay insurance on a nuclear power plant? Don’t own or operate one. What is so difficult about that?
Ok Ok, enough of this…Back to the effect of today’s ruling.
All of the GOP members of Senate have signed on to repeal. Will this ruling allow enough of the Dem members to cross over and put it out of it’s misery?
If not, do they continue to stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong and hope for a favorable decision from the Supremes? thereby taking the chance that the entire bill blows up in their face.
Do they instead be proactive and try to pull it back and refashion some type of plan that will be acceptable/Constitutional?