And such ships never, ever return to port? I’m aware of stare decisis, but doesn’t the SC also have the ability to overturn or curtail prior SC decisions?
A person can opt out of auto insurance by choosing to go without a car. It is impossible for a person to “opt out” of having a human body. If your body breaks down, emergency rooms are required to treat you even if you can’t pay for it.
You have it backwards. The government lets you deduct mortgage interest from your current taxes paid…as opposed to raising taxes but letting us write off the mortgage interest. This would be a good comparison if everyone who purchased health insurance could write it off of their current taxes. Of course, if this is the case then there is no penalty for NOT purchasing insurance. I suspect you know this already.
I think you are pulling the cart before the horse on that one. Just because the government mandates that ERs MUST help anyone regardless of their ability to pay does not give them the right to force people to insure themselves retroactively.
Think of it this way. Congress raised taxes on everyone in the country. Those that purchase insurance get a tax credit.
I think you’re the one seeing this backwards, since everyone who doesn’t buy a house doesn’t have the interest write-off. It’s semantic legerdemain designed to not look like a tax. And for most people it won’t be, because most people will have health care coverage.
So what is the argument that it is unconstitutional? Exceeds authority under the commerce clause? I think that would be a tough sell.
The only other argument is that the government cannot “force” people to buy a product. While I may agree with that, I can’t see the clause in the Constitution that would prohibit it. What is the summary argument that this law is unconstitutional?
It works the other way around. Congress doesn’t get to do anything it wants as long as the Constitution doesn’t forbid it. Congress can only act on authority give to it by the Constitution.
Well, if it is a tax increase on everyone then this is the way government should have advertised it. You can spin this any way you like but, in the end, those who do not have coverage will have to pay a fixed amount EXTRA to the government. THAT is a penalty.
Just because everyone doesn’t have a mortgage does NOT equal a tax increase on those who do not. Everyone who did not have a house the day before the mortgage deduction took effect paid the same taxes the day after it took effect. Contrast that with raising everyone’s taxes and then negating the tax increase for those that bought a house. One is incentivizing an activity while the other is punishing an inactivity. See the difference?
No, there isn’t a difference. Every increase in taxes is an extra amount. You are getting bogged down in semantics because you want to justify your dislike of the policy.
Also, one can emphasize words with *italics *. YOU don’t NEED to CAPITALIZE words.
My search online about this issue only showed a whole bunch of conservative blogs salivating over the lack of severability in “Obamacare.” I couldn’t find any analysis from a credible legal authority on whether a single unconstitutional feature could get the entire law tossed aside.
:rolleyes: It still can’t establish a state church, or extend present Congressmen’s terms indefinitely.
The Constitution isn’t supposed to anticipate every law that someone might need to pass & give explicit permission for it. It’s a basic operating system.
Honestly, putting “rights reserved to the people” in the text was probably a mistake, because now most Yanks think the Constitution is some kind of moral law instead of an organizing framework for an effective government. But in any case, the Bill of Rights doesn’t say, “Congress can only do X, Y, & Z.” It says, “Congress can’t do A, B, & C.” See the difference?
Very true. My mistake. But assuming that the Commerce Clause would authorize a health care law (which, unless Wickard and Raich are overturned, I don’t see why not) then why is a provision that forces a person to buy something such an unthinkable thing as to make it violate the Constitution? Or is the whole she-bang a Commerce Clause argument?
There is clearly a difference. You are trying to conflate the two in order to justify a penalty as a tax increase on everyone…except those that buy this product. Can’t you see how YOU (or, if you prefer you) are twisting words to justify your agreement with the policy?
Let’s see…if I raise taxes on one - and only one - person can I then claim that I cut taxes for everyone else? By your definition I can. Surely you can see how absurd that sounds.
The Constitution clearly says what congress can do. The bill of rights was not intended to be an all-encompassing list of what the government cannot do. The bill of rights was meant to emphasize some of the most important no-no’s.
If the statute does not provide for what to do if part of it is severed, there is federal common law that helps the courts determine what happens to a federal statute, and state common law for state statutes. Generally speaking, the court is asked to determine what the relevant legislature would have wanted. In this case, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. On the one hand, the individual mandate is pretty much the lynchpin the regulations regarding preexisting conditions. On the other hand, Obama didn’t think it was that essential in the campaign, and many or most of the other provisions still make sense without it. Most likely, if the individual mandate were struck down, most of the rest of the bill would remain.
And from the Michigan case rejecting the challenge:
Think what you want of that reasoning, but clearly the connection to the justification for civil rights laws will be an important one as these cases climb the appellate ladder.
