so to get back at it, the commerce clause come in to play when individuals interact with something, hence the ability of the feds to regulate work place, food safety etc. Who does not come in to contact with the health care system? I know you can find instances, but it is really widespread, and is that a position we as a people advocate? I don't.
You mix first amendment jurisprudence with commerce clause jurisprudence,
Bullshit. Whifffffff. I never mentioned the first amendment, jackass. Try to follow along. I know this is taxing on your tiny brain, and you need lots of time to "form thoughts."
And where the hell is "unprecedented" in the commerce clause, mouthbreather? Congress can make only precedented laws to regulate interstate commerce? Brilliant.
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15752 Location: Ponderosa
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject:
NOIP, only one of the issues in the case is whether HCR violates the Constitution. there are other issues, including the very troubling standing issue, which gets very arcane.
the tenth amendment reserves to the states powers not given to the feds. the feds argue that they have power for HCR under at least two provisions: commerce clause and taxing power. finding fed authority under either provision removes the 10th amendment problem
people have questioned whether there is any meaningful limitation to the commerce clause powers and the Court periodically struggles to find some life in the commerce clause as a restriction on federal power
IMO, it's hard to argue that regulation of health care does not fall within regulation of commerce, but health care is also very personal and does not necessarily involve interstate commerce
I'm not sure there is any weight to the (simplistic) argument that the feds cannot force you to buy insurance. to my knowledge, that's not a commerce clause argument _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
the reference to "enumerated powers" is a reference to the commerce clause and the taxing authority in the Constitution _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Anyway, expect a narrowly tailored decision one way or the other. They will try to distinguish this case from other exercises of the commerce clause and you can bet it will be limited to its facts. _________________ "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anais Nin
Anyway, expect a narrowly tailored decision one way or the other. They will try to distinguish this case from other exercises of the commerce clause and you can bet it will be limited to its facts.
Or maybe Roberts or Kennedy will realize they aren't copulating legislators.
Anyway, expect a narrowly tailored decision one way or the other. They will try to distinguish this case from other exercises of the commerce clause and you can bet it will be limited to its facts.
Or maybe Roberts or Kennedy will realize they aren't copulating legislators.
The Times, in an editorial today, responds to a question by Justice Antonin Scalia about how this differs from forcing us to buy broccoli: “Congress has no interest in requiring broccoli purchases because the failure to buy broccoli does not push that cost onto others in the system.”
The answer, it seems to me, is simple. Let the health plan continue as enacted, with government subsidies and rules to assure access to health insurance for everyone. But if someone is morally offended by the idea of buying health insurance, he or she should be given counseling about the risks but then allowed to decide.
Persons who decline insurance would be allowed to provide details of how they intended to pay for care otherwise, if they wished to do so, and to name a person who would be responsible for paying for the care if the patient were unable to direct payment, much as many people now have health care proxies.
Anyone who chose not to have health insurance, and not to indicate how they would otherwise pay, would be put on a “Do Not Treat” list.
Hospitals could simply refuse to offer any treatment, respecting the person’s wish to make his or her own decisions free of an intrusive government trying to keep them alive.
I doubt many people would sign up for such a system, but it would certainly overcome the alleged constitutional flaw in the current health care law.
I used to discuss just this sort of thing with a hard right friend who was outraged over the ACA. He used the emergency room as needed for his clinic and too f'ing bad if that cost was added on to my insurance premium....I didn't have to buy insurance, so that was my problem if I decided to. Yes, I did try to point out the obvious disconnect with that attitude and many of his other deep red opinions about so called personal responsibility. His response to questions about what if it's "The Big One" and not just getting an owie fixed up in the ER? "Just shoot me."
Way before he came out of his coma in intensive care a few weeks after after wrecking his motorcycle (etoh on board) his assets were long gone. No insurance. Months in repair and rehab in the hospital, then on to long term, probably for the duration, assisted care group home of some sort all on the public dime....and no thought of anyone just shooting him when the joke of snarky bullshit answers to tough questions hit the hard road of reality.
You mix first amendment jurisprudence with commerce clause jurisprudence,
Bullshit. Whifffffff. I never mentioned the first amendment, jackass. Try to follow along. I know this is taxing on your tiny brain, and you need lots of time to "form thoughts."
And where the hell is "unprecedented" in the commerce clause, mouthbreather? Congress can make only precedented laws to regulate interstate commerce? Brilliant.
"I never mentioned the first amendment.." Classic! You just admitted that you have no idea what you're spewing about in here.
You mix first amendment jurisprudence with commerce clause jurisprudence,
Bullshit. Whifffffff. I never mentioned the first amendment, jackass. Try to follow along. I know this is taxing on your tiny brain, and you need lots of time to "form thoughts."
And where the hell is "unprecedented" in the commerce clause, mouthbreather? Congress can make only precedented laws to regulate interstate commerce? Brilliant.
"I never mentioned the first amendment.." Classic! You just admitted that you have no idea what you're spewing about in here.
Sure dude, I made a long and detailed argument that the court should uphold this because of the first amendment. (Because I said "People!" and because you're copulating desperate.)
How 'bout you? Still sticking to the court striking because of the 10th amendment?
You mix first amendment jurisprudence with commerce clause jurisprudence,
Bullshit. Whifffffff. I never mentioned the first amendment, jackass. Try to follow along. I know this is taxing on your tiny brain, and you need lots of time to "form thoughts."
And where the hell is "unprecedented" in the commerce clause, mouthbreather? Congress can make only precedented laws to regulate interstate commerce? Brilliant.
"I never mentioned the first amendment.." Classic! You just admitted that you have no idea what you're spewing about in here.
Sure dude, I made a long and detailed argument that the court should uphold this because of the first amendment. (Because I said "People!" and because you're copulating desperate.)
How 'bout you? Still sticking to the court striking because of the 10th amendment?
dude - i think it is the 10th and slammy thinks it's the commerce clause - follow along
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
