Court rRuling on Obamacare

[loren]

We "foreigners" as opposed to a gun packin' TV have an interest in this because it has a direct know-on effect on the wider issues of US politics. And that of course has a wide impact on global politics. So your slur is innappropriate. Your last Republican presidency inflicted immense damage on the world and on the US. We across the water pray another will not be in office in the near future.

On a personal level half my family live in the US - an ALL support the affordable Care act. But then they don't live in Missouri... with its stone age political views.

It wasn't ment as a slur, I ment it more as a joke. I just get a little annoyed at people from another country telling me how I should vote and who I should or should not support. I haven't told anyone across the pond that they should support Scottish independence or that they should drive out the Hanoverian swine.

If everyone in my State dranke obama's kool-aid, would we still have stone age political views?

[robertlouis]

If everyone in my State dranke obama's kool-aid, would we still have stone age political views?

No, you'd still have stone-age political views no matter what you drink lol.

[robertlouis]

Fortunately for me, the State of Missouri voted on and passed an ammendment to the State's constitution. We soundly rejected the individual mandate. However if the Governor or State legislation were to try to go back on that; or if obama were to try to force it on us, I will NEVER submit to it.

So just what exactly would you do if your insurance didn't meet your personal health needs? Applaud the free market and die?

[BluegrassCat]

Fortunately for me, the State of Missouri voted on and passed an ammendment to the State's constitution. We soundly rejected the individual mandate. However if the Governor or State legislation were to try to go back on that; or if obama were to try to force it on us, I will NEVER submit to it.

Fortunately for you and the people of Missouri, you can take as many votes against it as you like but thanks to the Supremacy Clause Missouri is bound by the individual mandate (tax). Enjoy.

[broncofan]

I can't speak for anyone else, my major objection to obamacare is the Federal usurpation of power. Health care is not a Federal issue, it is an issue that should be left to the individual State's. Many people (I see a lot of foreigners) have argued that it is perfectly okay for the government to demand that everyone buys health insurance because people who drive cars have to have insurance. Firstly, drivers have to have insurance for their automobile, not for themselves. Secondly, the laws regarding car insurance are determined by each individual State.

Fortunately for me, the State of Missouri voted on and passed an ammendment to the State's constitution. We soundly rejected the individual mandate. However if the Governor or State legislation were to try to go back on that; or if obama were to try to force it on us, I will NEVER submit to it.

You don't have a choice. As Bluegrass said, the Supremacy clause says that federal law, when constitutional, trumps state law. The mandate was passed under the Commerce Clause, and as many predicted the fine if you do not pay into it is considered a tax. So it implicates the tax and spending clause. If you would like to evade taxes, you can find yourself a nice federal prison to go to.

[broncofan]

Mitt Romney has recently said that while the Court has said that the PPAPA is constitutional, they did not say it was a good law. Could you imagine if they did? Talk about judicial activism; it would be some interesting dicta if the Court decided they wanted to talk about the merits of every bill whose constitutionality they ruled on.

But Mitt has promised that if he's elected President, he will repeal the PPAPA. I think he means the legislature will, but it is a very interesting campaign strategy to advertise that you are going to deprive Americans of the first comprehensive health care bill ever passed into law. I really think this will backfire.

With this decision, Scalia has distinguished himself as an unprincipled turd who has contradicted his previous Commerce Clause decisions by attempting to create a distinction that has no meaning. Kennedy has distinguished himself as a mental lightweight who apparently didn't understand the previous decisions he's issued on the subject, and Clarence Thomas has been consistent as he has never had respect for precedent on the Commerce Clause. What a bold and courageous decision by Justice Roberts. I agree that elements of the mandate, insofar as they "create commerce" have the effect of a tax, and so are not a usurpation of the states' power by the legislature. But any federal regulation intended to fix a broken and inconsistent state by state system of regulation are going to have to restructure that system entirely. There's no point in making artificial distinctions in order to limit their ability to do so when the Due Process clause already does.

[broncofan]

Smart call, Flabbybody...

3) Does the concept of 'interstate commerce' mean insurance? I do understand that health is big business, in the UK as well as everywhere else, but to me my first reaction is to call it a service: surely it cannot be health-care in the US that is considered 'interstate commerce'? Apologies for my ignorance on this.

Perhaps Obamacare should now become Obama Cares...?

I know this isn't addressed to me so I apologize if I am speaking out of turn. In previous cases, below are a couple of examples of things that have been considered interestate commerce. Marijuana someone was growing on his property in one state. Wheat that someone grew for his own personal consumption. In this latter case, the wheat that someone grew for his own consumption was said to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce because the federal government was attempting to fix the price of wheat. If many farmers were to grow wheat for their own consumption, it would greatly reduce the demand for wheat in interstate commerce and thwart the purpose of the legislation.

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted very broadly because actions that are taken intra-state exert effects far beyond the borders of that state. In fact, the Civil Rights Act was passed under the Commerce Clause because if businesses discriminated based on prohibited factors such as race, sex, national origin, etc. it would have an effect on interstate commerce because people from various ethnic backgrounds would not be able to do business where such practices were prevalent.

So, even though it's counter-intuitive, the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government broad authority to create a comprehensive program to regulate certain types of commercial activity when states cannot because of political pressures. States have individual pressures to attract insurance business for instance by having the most permissive laws. They also have pressure to discriminate against out of staters, which is prohibited by the so-called dormant commerce clause which limits a state's ability to create laws that would interfere with the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce even in the absence of federal legislation. For instance if a state wanted to make it illegal to drive a tractor trailer on their highways, it would violate the dormant commerce clause. Even though there may be no federal law on point, it would exert a negative effect on interstate commerce that would usurp the federal government's authority.

But the most important issue is that the Supreme Court usually respects precedent. The principle of stare decisis says that previous interpretations by a court are controlling on issues said to fall within that holding. So, Justices such as Scalia, have pressure to find artificial distinctions to claim they are not breaking with precedent.

Finally, many Republicans like to quote the state's rights argument, claiming that activities that have traditionally been carried out by the states are powers exclusively held by them. However, our 10th amendment says that those powers that the constitution does not delegate to the federal government reside in the states. So, if it falls within the ambit of an enumerated power given to the federal government, then federal law trumps state law.

[loren]

Fortunately for you and the people of Missouri, you can take as many votes against it as you like but thanks to the Supremacy Clause Missouri is bound by the individual mandate (tax). Enjoy.

According to the Tenth Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " The Supremacy Clause says that the U.S. Constitution, and laws passed within the boundries set up in the Constitution. is the supreme law of the land. Medical insurance is not a power granted to the Federal government, therefore is left as a State issue.

You don't have a choice. As Bluegrass said, the Supremacy clause says that federal law, when constitutional, trumps state law. The mandate was passed under the Commerce Clause, and as many predicted the fine if you do not pay into it is considered a tax. So it implicates the tax and spending clause. If you would like to evade taxes, you can find yourself a nice federal prison to go to.

It was passed as being under the authority of the Commerce Clause. However, it was argued as a tax. In fact the Supreme Court said that Congress does not have the power to demand that people take part a=in any market, but they do have the power to levy tax. A "tax" I will not pay!

[broncofan]

That's funny, I was just talking about the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court just ruled today that the federal law was constitutional. So, it was passed pursuant to the federal government's constitutionally enumerated authority. So, there is no power left to reside in the states as they cannot pass a law that expressly or implicitly contradicts a federal law that does not violate the Constitution (according to the highest court in the land; not you dimwit).

The mandate is passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause. The fine if you do not get insurance is covered I presume by the Taxing and Spending Clause. As the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the mandate and the fine for violating the mandate, you have no choice but to comply or violate the law.

There's a place for people who do that. It's called prison.

[robertlouis]

So just what exactly would you do if your insurance didn't meet your personal health needs? Applaud the free market and die?

Bump.

Well, are you going to respond, Loren?