You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #52: You're making a big leap of logic. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. You're making a big leap of logic.
Congress has the ability to regulate the interstate sales of health insurance via the Commerce Clause. Congress has the ability to pass other peripheral laws relating to the sales of health insurance via the Necessary and Proper Clause. No real dispute there.

But, in order for Congress to expand their regulation, they have to show a connection. If there is no sale, there is no connection. If there is no COMMERCE based connection between me and a Federally regulatable industry, upon what OTHER constitutionally vested power do you base your application of the Necessary and Proper Clause? The anti-Federalists lost this argument 200 years ago, and American jurisprudence has largely held that it cannot be applied willy-nilly to any subject that Congress is interested in regulating.

The HC Mandate advocates often lie to the public and try to claim that everyone who isn't covered is a drain to the system. That's untrue, and many Americans seek medical care today on a cash basis, pay their bills, and impose no burden on the taxpayers. Upon what Constitutional basis will you apply the Elastic Clause to dictate that such people be forced to purchase insurance they neither want or need?

Congress has the power to pass nearly unlimited regulation of the insurance companies using the two clauses. Congress does not have the right to pass unlimited regulation on individuals using those clauses, unless there is a clear connection between them AND a regulated industry. If you're not engaging that industry in any way, it's a huge leap to simply assume there is a regulatable connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -The individual mandate is easily Constitutional. You can explain it to anyone in 3 seconds. BzaDem  Dec-13-10 05:03 PM   #0 
  - Miserable Fail  ThePhilosopher04   Dec-13-10 06:26 PM   #1 
  - Do you have ANY evidence to back up your assertion? Because it is blatently false.  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 06:28 PM   #2 
  - We are all forced by government  WyLoochka   Dec-13-10 06:37 PM   #3 
  - That's because driving is considered a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT  derby378   Dec-13-10 06:43 PM   #5 
  - hat then is the case precedent for that particular distinction?  LanternWaste   Dec-13-10 06:59 PM   #12 
  - Why don't you do your own research?  WinkyDink   Dec-13-10 07:37 PM   #23 
  - Health Insurance is also considered a privilege and not a Right  Bandit   Dec-14-10 12:14 PM   #66 
  - Not if you don't have a car  BuelahWitch   Dec-13-10 06:45 PM   #6 
  - They could absolutely force you to buy auto insurance EVEN IF you didn't have a car! There is  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 06:47 PM   #8 
     - Oh, please. Nothing prohibits making citizens walk naked, but guess what? IT DOESN'T NEED TO.  WinkyDink   Dec-13-10 07:33 PM   #21 
     - False and show a complete failure in understanding the Constitution.  Statistical   Dec-13-10 08:54 PM   #31 
        - Statistical, I am talking about STATES. Obviously the Federal government couldn't order you to do  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:40 PM   #36 
           - Depends on the state Constitution.  Statistical   Dec-13-10 09:46 PM   #40 
              - But the point is, the state has the power. What levers the need to pull to use that power may vary.  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:49 PM   #43 
                 - No the state (or federal govt) only has the power if granted by the Constitution (state or federal)  Statistical   Dec-14-10 07:45 AM   #55 
                    - But many states don't even HAVE enumerated power schemes.  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 01:12 PM   #67 
  - Excuse me, but "we" is limited to the sub-set of citizens known as "automobile owners." FAIL.  WinkyDink   Dec-13-10 07:32 PM   #20 
  - They you require you buy liability insurance - to protect others from you.  dflprincess   Dec-13-10 09:47 PM   #41 
  - That argument has been debunked so often it's getting boring  sabrina 1   Dec-14-10 01:58 PM   #76 
  - You can of course cite case precedent to validate this, yes?  LanternWaste   Dec-13-10 06:55 PM   #11 
     - We don't need no stinkin' case precedent  derby378   Dec-13-10 07:35 PM   #22 
  - It's still a bad idea. Candidate Obama, you want to field this one?  jpgray   Dec-13-10 06:40 PM   #4 
  - I love it when the Obama's debate!! Though I much prefer candidate Obama.  Lucky 13   Dec-13-10 08:55 PM   #32 
  - The Bill of Rights was enacted partially because of that little clause  derby378   Dec-13-10 06:47 PM   #7 
  - Except you have absolutely no Constitutional right to not be forced to buy a product. None.  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 06:48 PM   #9 
     - Can they force you to buy a bible? A gun? A car? A house?  The Straight Story   Dec-13-10 06:50 PM   #10 
     - Woo-hoo! Machine guns for everybody!  derby378   Dec-13-10 07:08 PM   #15 
     - I keep waiting on them to force me to buy one, since some think they can  The Straight Story   Dec-13-10 07:16 PM   #16 
        - I like the way you think  derby378   Dec-13-10 07:19 PM   #18 
        - If Flip Wilson were still alive would Geraldine's line change to  BuelahWitch   Dec-13-10 07:26 PM   #19 
     - A state can force you to buy a gun, car, and a House. A bible might give you a freedom of religion  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:42 PM   #37 
        - And which states have done so?  Lydia Leftcoast   Dec-13-10 09:51 PM   #45 
           - Oh, none. I'm not saying they have done so. I'm just disputing the idea that they can't.  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:54 PM   #48 
     - The government has no right to force you to enter into commerce with a private entity.  girl gone mad   Dec-13-10 07:03 PM   #13 
     - That's not true in the slightest. Do you have anything to back your assertion up? n/t  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:42 PM   #38 
     - Serve the Computer. The Computer is your friend.  derby378   Dec-13-10 07:06 PM   #14 
     - Uh. Yes you do. It's right in the Bill of Rights.  Xithras   Dec-13-10 07:18 PM   #17 
     - Just because the Constitution doesn't say "Congress has the power to mandate things" doesn't mean  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:44 PM   #39 
        - You're making a big leap of logic.  Xithras   Dec-13-10 11:44 PM   #52 
        - "But, in order for Congress to expand their regulation, they have to show a connection." False.  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 01:21 PM   #68 
        - Have you  sweetapogee   Dec-14-10 07:59 AM   #58 
     - Are you daft? INFINITUDE cannot be imputed to either the Constitution OR the Federal Government.  WinkyDink   Dec-13-10 07:39 PM   #24 
     - Actually  Abq_Sarah   Dec-14-10 01:20 AM   #54 
  - The commerce clause and general welfare clause also make it perfectly constitutional  Dark   Dec-13-10 08:39 PM   #25 
  - The Tenth Amendment would beg to differ.  WinkyDink   Dec-13-10 08:41 PM   #26 
     - No, it wouldn't. The 10th applies ONLY to things that the constitution did not cover.  Dark   Dec-13-10 09:51 PM   #44 
        - I disagree  sweetapogee   Dec-14-10 11:09 AM   #60 
        - Nope the Commerce clause is wide (maybe too wide) but SCOTUS has ruled  Statistical   Dec-14-10 11:19 AM   #64 
  - If the HCR Bill is so great, why would you need to defend it to anyone?  leftstreet   Dec-13-10 08:41 PM   #27 
  - nope  H2O Man   Dec-13-10 08:45 PM   #28 
  - FAIL. Your entire premise is that the only way the govt can achieve the end result is via mandate.  Statistical   Dec-13-10 08:50 PM   #29 
  - the fact that there are other alternatives doesn't make the one chosen unconstitutional  onenote   Dec-14-10 11:16 AM   #63 
  - Can I just ask a totally off-topic question?  Lucky 13   Dec-13-10 08:53 PM   #30 
  - There's no mandate now and we have 85% coverage. Most people with it are not sick.  Hello_Kitty   Dec-13-10 08:58 PM   #33 
  - Why would a rational person buy health insurance if they aren't sick and would never have to pay a  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:40 PM   #35 
     - Why do people do it right under employer based plans.  Statistical   Dec-13-10 09:49 PM   #42 
     - In many cases, the credit you get on your paycheck if you opt out is not even close to the actual  BzaDem   Dec-13-10 09:53 PM   #47 
     - I saw plenty of "invincible" young people opt out of 401K and stock participation  Hello_Kitty   Dec-13-10 09:59 PM   #49 
     - When I was working at dell  christx30   Dec-18-10 09:17 PM   #82 
  - History: There was a law with a mandate to purchase a gun  Tx4obama   Dec-13-10 09:00 PM   #34 
  - That's hardly an admirable precedent  Lydia Leftcoast   Dec-13-10 09:52 PM   #46 
     - It may not be admirable but it is 'precedent' that can be used in future judicial decisions. n/t  Tx4obama   Dec-14-10 10:59 AM   #59 
  - Bza's trying to talk Constitution again. The Necessary and Proper Clause this time, eh?  coti   Dec-13-10 09:59 PM   #50 
  - you make think "necessary" is stronger word, but you aren't Justice Marshall  onenote   Dec-14-10 12:07 PM   #65 
  - I said the word is stronger than the OP gave it credit for, and it is.  coti   Dec-14-10 01:29 PM   #70 
     - What you are saying is totally false. The question isn't whether it is neccessary to YOU.  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 01:33 PM   #72 
        - "It is necessary for the pre-existing condition regulation to work." Why was THAT necessary?  coti   Dec-14-10 01:40 PM   #73 
           - I think you are misunderstanding what has to be necessary. The pre-existing condition regulation  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 01:44 PM   #74 
              - Given your interpretation of the Clause, what CAN'T Congress do?  coti   Dec-14-10 01:51 PM   #75 
                 - What regulation would your proposal be "necessary" to?  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 02:10 PM   #77 
                    - That's a meaningless distinction. Congress has passed laws regulating everything imaginable.  coti   Dec-14-10 02:53 PM   #78 
  - Actually, the "necessary" requirement is MUCH less strong than you think it is.  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 01:27 PM   #69 
  - Ugly reasoning.  Matariki   Dec-13-10 10:04 PM   #51 
  - While I think the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act is probably covered by the commerce clause  TheKentuckian   Dec-14-10 12:34 AM   #53 
  - It wouldn't choke the cartel to death at all. It would just mean that only rich people could afford  BzaDem   Dec-14-10 01:30 PM   #71 
  - I have a huge issue with mandating that people by the product of a private company.  Odin2005   Dec-14-10 07:48 AM   #56 
  - It is always amusing when people ignorant about the law,  MadHound   Dec-14-10 07:49 AM   #57 
  - That is true. However, ultimately, the Constitution says whatever the majority of Justices say  Romulox   Dec-14-10 11:16 AM   #62 
  - The best place to start with this is the opinion itself.  treestar   Dec-14-10 11:11 AM   #61 
  - wrong, plain wrong, period...  thotzRthingz   Dec-16-10 02:48 PM   #79 
  - Except that...  Creative   Dec-16-10 02:53 PM   #80 
  - What do you do for a living?  Bluenorthwest   Dec-16-10 03:18 PM   #81 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC