Obamacare: Administration’s Curious Incuriousity About Constitutionality of Forced Insurance Purchase » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

suek 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Not only that, Lydia, but if you fail to buy your insurance, you’ll be fined. And that fine is going to be collected by the IRS. Now…what does the IRS do if you fail to pay what you owe them? eventually, they seize your possessions. Your home, your land – whatever…and auction them off to satisfy your debt.

So…don’t buy your health insurance, and end up homeless .

Think not? ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Leo White 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

I think I see your point, Lydia: If a law mandating the purchase of health insurance were part of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, then it could only fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause; but that clause is directed only toward regulating economic activities that have been initiated by individuals. Since the proposed law first mandates and then regulates such transactions.

My reply is that it’s amazing how elastic the Interstate Commerce Clause already has shown itself to be. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racially discriminatory economic behavior–including transactions that are not obviously interstate–was upheld as Constitutional. I’m glad of that, and I would add that that the mandating the purchase of insurance seems far less of a stretch of the Commerce Clause than the subsumption of intrastate commerce under interstate. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

uberVU - social comments 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jessicaslaport: Obamacare: Administration’s Curious Incuriousity About …: There is a significant constitutional question .. http://bit.ly/2E1g7U…

Reply

Lydia 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Um, no, Leo. The argument rather is that by no possible stretch of the imagination can this be a power of the federal government under the commerce clause. This would imply that simply by _existing_, people (including newborn infants) are somehow engaging in activities that have something to do with Interstate Commerce. If that works, then my neighbor’s dog is also engaging in Interstate Commerce . However creative other extensions of federal power have been, they have at least required one to engage in some sort of _activity_ (such as running a business, or at least growing wheat, for crying out loud) before falling under the coercive direct power of the federal government. If this is allowed to be constitutional, the whole, quaint notion of enumerated powers is turned into a complete joke.

By the way, I’ve asked this before: Does the Baucus version also have mandatory purchase? ... See all content Hide content

Reply

property_insure 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Obamacare: Administration's Curious Incuriousity About ...: There is a significant constitutional question .. http://bit.ly/2E1g7U

Reply

Leo White 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The only argument that one could employ against the constitutionality of forcing citizens to buy health care would be to say that it impinges on the citizens’ liberty of contract, with such a liberty being implicit in the 14th amendment’s mention of life, liberty and property. Such an argument would be similar to those used to strike down minimum wage and maximum work hour laws in the 1930s . But (as the Supreme Court later admitted) the Constitution does not protect liberty of contract from state regulation: it just requires that due process be followed when depriving or limiting a citizen’s liberties.

It would not seem consistent to argue on one hand that the Supreme Court ought not to read the right to abortion into the liberty clause of the 14th amendment while arguing on the other hand that the Court should read the special protections for liberty of contract into the same Amendment. One must either accept both or reject both.

I for one would reject both and say that if Obamacare is to be rejected, it is to be rejected as bad law. But not all bad laws are unconstitutional. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Ianthe 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Oh, for heaven’s sake. Teddy Kennedy who lived in the tabloids was one of them. A former one of them dances on one of those reality contest shows in a most undignified manner; his dancing at all would be considered by the Romans unconstitutional. This president and the two before him have been admit substance users, and those who elected two of them grew up on MTV, were taught history by teachers who prided themselves on “making them learn concepts, not dates,” and rely on computers and spellcheck rather than ever having gotten an actual basic education. Obama said he grew up listening to Michael Jackson. These are Today’s Democrats. What do you expect? Constitution? What Constitution? ... See all content Hide content

Reply