Fair enough. It’s the first thing mentioned on his campaign site (which is still up), so I was making assumptions.
Washington. Our Governor (prefers Democratic Party) and AG (prefers Republican Party) have been in a fairly public disagreement about Washington’ joining onto the case in the first place. link, link.
It could be speculated that the AG had, until recently, been seen as reasonably centrist and that striking a more right wing stance may make it more likely that he’ll make it through to the general election should he choose to run for Governor.
So can I opt out of medicare? And a bit more removed, can I opt out of paying that portion of taxes that goes to the military?
It doesn’t matter is the government has done it before or not. The question is CAN the government do this.
No. You misunderstand my point. I think the government CAN do this under system of taxation. Whether we use or like all it provides is too bad. But this is operating outside the tax system, and I don’t think that is a good idea at all, or constitutional. This is a horrible idea in that it acts much like a tax, without the government having to raise the tax rate. It’s a slight of hand for them to extract more money but still argue that they haven’t raised taxes. And if they can do it for this, the door is wide open. Just look at how many taxes they gave us once they saw they could add them. This doesn’t mean that taxes are bad, but that we should easily be able to see how much of our money the government is asking us to hand over.
But “pretty close to essential” is not the same as “essential”. There are millions and millions of people who choose to not own cars.
That’s true, but is specific to an individual, or a small group of individuals, based on specific criteria. The conditions for Obamacare are “you’re a U.S. citizen and your breathing”.
Not to be snarky, but isn’t social security forcing the majority of the work force to effectively buy a retirement package?
I’m lost. Why is it unconstitutional (as opposed to merely a bad idea) for Congress to say, for example, that a citizen must buy a pair of gloves for the winter?
Where does this thought come from that the government can’t force you to buy something? They can force pretty much everything else through law? They can force me to mow my grass. They can force me to feed my kids. They can force me to pay property tax on my primary home. Where does the constitution say that the government can’t force you to buy things?
Except for two minor things.
-
There is no such law. The “Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” applies only to ““participating hospitals”, i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.” Now, very few hospitals opt out of this, but the law is about funding, not about operations, per se.
-
No law can be “logically extended” to violate the constitution, and that’s what’s being asserted by the states.
Our constitution carefully distinguishes between state government, whose power is plenary, and the federal government, whose powers are only the ones enumerated in the constitution. Your state government could unquestionably force you to purchase health insurance, or gloves for the winter.
Now Congress could set up a tax, and spend the proceeds for the General Welfare. That’s how Medicare and Social Security passed muster. But forcing individual citizens to do something is not one of the powers the states gave Congress. The Commerce Clause has pretty specific jurisprudence behind it, and limits have been reached a couple of times in recent years. Civil Rights-era cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel or Daniel v. Paul made it seem like Congress’s power was unlimited, but read the constraints laid down more recently in Perez v. United States, (1971), and U.S. v. Lopez (1995).
It’s one thing for Congress to regulate economic activity, but something else entirely for Congress to require citizens to enter into an economic activity. Congress cannot disguise a police power—requiring citizens to do something rather than do nothing—as mere regulation of economic activity. This would obliterate the Section Eight limitations.
The question now is whether Congress drafted this provision carefully enough that it can be considered part of the system of taxation. If not, does the line of cases including Wickard v. Filburn (1942) allow regulation to extend as far as requiring a guy quietly sitting at home in his recliner to do something rather than do nothing?
There are smart constitutional lawyers on both sides of this issue, but I think the Supreme Court will eventually find the mandate unconstitutional.
The AG knows damn well that if he plays the game he can always trade in his shitty low paid job as an AG for cushy high paid job in the insurance industry. The AG didn’t get there by being stupid although the AG might be greedy and without scruples.
It’s supposedly your money. This is the best argument I think there is, but it still fails, as you have to exchange your money for a good (service).
jtgain, the constitution is very specific in the powers residing at the federal level. And those that are not specifically listed reside with the states. So, if the question is, “can a state do this?”, I think they’d be on much firmer ground. Not solid, mind you, but firmer. It’s still a bad idea, in my opinion, but at least we’d have 50 experiments going on.
Cuccinelli (one of the most notorious AGs regarding this issue) is the perfect example of an AG being greedy and without scruples, although I can not exclude stupidity.
Only one of them joined the lawsuit (Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana). The other four refused and were overruled in some way by the governor.
http://www.governorbarbour.com/news/2010/apr/4.13.10Barbournotifiesattorneygeneral.html
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226631-georgia-governor-circumvents-ag-to-join-health-care-lawsuit
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=689698074790790
Total number of states now suing is 28:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisania
Maine
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Lord Feldon – your correction is noted. In turn, I’d add Greg Phillips of Wyoming, a Democrat who was not forced into the action.
I don’t know about people in other states, but because governors in Virginia cannot run for reelection people do know who the Attorney General is. As a statewide elected official this politician is well suited to run another statewide campaign for the governor’s mansion, and is always mentioned along with the Lieutenant Governor as a potential candidate.
Of our recent AGs McDonnell, Kilgore, Earley, Gilmore and Terry have run for governor and McDonnell and Gilmore have won their races.
6 more and we can get an Article V Constitutional Convention
You are certain this challenge has been moved by “the legislatures of … the several states” rather than the Attorneys General? Is it your impression that even if the state legislatures of all of these states are opposed to the health care reform bill, they are willing to alter the constitution over it?
I think that’s premature (not that you asked me). The position of the 28 states is that the legislation is already violative of the Constitution. Whether they’d be willing to change the Constitution over such a thing if the courts disagree is a completely untested proposition.
Couldn’t the federal government conceivably raise income taxes on all individuals and then offer a deduction for all individuals who buy private insurance, to accomplish the exact same net result as the “penalty”? Take the home-loan interest deduction, for example. Isn’t the government forcing everyone to take out a home loan from a private company or pay a penalty? Is there any difference other than the bookkeeping required?