HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » With Respect To The Const...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:13 PM

With Respect To The Constitutionality Of The Mandate.

Over the last couple of days I have seen many threads comparing the mandate to other aspects of society. The presumption is that if ? is constitutional, then the mandate must be constitutional. Every one I have seen has fallen completely flat when the constitution is actually brought into the conversation. Most are even apple and orange comparisons.

I have yet to see a very basic argument, directly relating to where in the Constitution, the feds have this power. Admittedly, I may have missed it. I don't get to read every thread.

I think it could hurt very bad if the mandate is overturned. But have yet to see a compelling reason as to why it won't be.

Lay it out for this simpleton.

7 replies, 866 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply With Respect To The Constitutionality Of The Mandate. (Original post)
NCTraveler Jun 2012 OP
Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #1
NCTraveler Jun 2012 #2
sinkingfeeling Jun 2012 #3
NCTraveler Jun 2012 #4
NCTraveler Jun 2012 #5
geek_sabre Jun 2012 #7
pinto Jun 2012 #6

Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:17 PM

1. I have yet to see an apt comparison

and if there was one, we would have heard about it ad infinitum by now.

The draft is not compelling people to buy from a private company, and neither is income tax.

Home insurance is only required if you have a mortgage, and auto, if you own a car and drive it. You can't opt not to breathe.

On the flip side, eliminating the penalty on pre-existing conditions without mandating that healthy people buy insurance is a fast track to collapse of the system, and the people who need it most being priced out of the market before they even begin.

Of course, there is Medicare Part E - that COULD be mandated under Federal Law if the Legislature would cut ties to their lobbyists and see the ROI for the Good of We The People, but it is what it is right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:21 PM

2. This is my point.

The power allowing the federal government to draft an army is very clear in the constitution. Article 1, Section 8. I don't even think the home insurance requirement is federal law.

Thanks for your reply. Love your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:25 PM

3. Most arguements for the mandate is based on the 'commerce clause'.

"The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Here is an article that points out some of the cases where the 'commerce clause' has been held as legal justification by the SCOTUS in the past.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/supreme-court-decisions-that-justify-the-individual-mandate-in-some-eyes/

Another interesting article is here: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102203/supreme-court-obamacare-verrilli

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:27 PM

4. Thank you.

I will read these when I get off work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:34 PM

5. After reading the second link, it seems there is one major difference.....

with the mandate and those rulings. The feds aren't regulating commerce, they are imposing commerce. I state that due to the tax/penalty brought down by the feds with respect to the mandate.

I will read the other two later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:43 PM

7. that was one of the questions during oral arguments

"Can the government create commerce in order to regulate it?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 02:40 PM

6. Yeah -

The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005):

"The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890."

The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders. The outer limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause power has been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and the states and the balance of power between the two elected branches of the Federal government and the Judiciary. As such, it has a direct impact on the lives of American citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread