Health Reform Bill & Supreme Court

[Dave020]

Does anyone think the Supreme Court will kill the health reform bill for being unconstitutional?

I'd just like to welcome Dave back to the forum.

 

[Winter_123]

The main arguments that will be made to the Supreme Court will follow this logic:

"Then it stands to reason that the government could mandate that everyone join a gym and exercise 5 hours a week minimum. Gyms will report to the government and anyone failing to workout the required hours will incur an IRS fine. This is a necessary move for the health of the country."

Well there are plenty of arguments to be made about actions that the government can and cannot require you to take. Interestingly though, from a case law precedent point of view, the mandate is the first under federal law which imposes a fee (either through premiums or for lack of premiums) upon a citizen simply for being alive, without regard to income, property, or actions or the granting of privileges. If you have been born , your life now has a surcharge on it. Maybe that is right and maybe Mr. Obama can find a good constitutional precedent or argument for that but, thanks to the states, he will have a chance to huff and puff and do that. Many a case that gets messy in the courts, gets settled at election time so it is all part of a strategy even if the court route does not prevail.

 

[dave74]

Thanks Dave!

It will be interesting to see what happens with all of the lawsuits being filed.

 

[stuy119]

The main arguments that will be made to the Supreme Court will follow this logic:

"Then it stands to reason that the government could mandate that everyone join a gym and exercise 5 hours a week minimum. Gyms will report to the government and anyone failing to workout the required hours will incur an IRS fine. This is a necessary move for the health of the country."

THAT would have been a better remedy than the crap they passed and put into law.

 

[retread]

It is not as simple as you propose. Saying that there is no mandate except you can be fined is what is called a legal requirement. You are buying into the Obama rhetoric that it is a "tax". That is what Obama hopes it will be called but there is credible argument to be made to the contrary and those arguments are about to be filed.

Second, and of considerable importance, is the fact that no one is arguing that the states do not have the power to pass a mandate. States have different powers under the Constitution than the feds do and vice versa. Powers not specifically granted to the national government are reserved to the states. So arguments about massachusetts laws under the massachusetts constitution are not applicable. The feds are trying to backdoor their way in through the interstate commerce clause etc. Not constitutionally pretty.

Note that I did not say in the previous post that the constitutional challenges would necessarily prevail. What I said was that it is not a slam dunk for Obama and that the constitutionality is sufficiently messy to do some damage to his cause. Having a bunch of states join for a challenge in areas where he might squeak by but is on thin ice is not good politics for him, particularly since he is dependent on those states to help implement.

Don't assume that the Southern states feel that they are bound by the Massachusetts courts, Massachusetts laws, or the Massachusetts constitution. Although as a northerner I will not be so foolish as to speak for them, I am going to take a wild and crazy guess that they don't.

Saying that there is no mandate except you can be fined is what is called a legal requirement.
Medicare Part B enrollment is not a mandate, but incurs a penalty (fine) if you don't enroll.... and is not a legal requirement since it is optional.
States have different powers under the Constitution than the feds do and vice versa.
Kansas, along with several other states, is drafting legislation and asking for citizen support for laws that will exempt many of those Reform mandates from applying within the state. It will be interesting to see how this effort will play out.

Maybe the answer is to secede from the Union... We could have the "Blue" states vs the "Red" states....

 

[Winter_123]

Maybe the answer is to secede from the Union... We could have the "Blue" states vs the "Red" states....

That could the right solution for those who are only marginally American but it would not be right for me. The electoral process is still open and the constitution can be amended where necessary if the people so decide. Problem is, the people have TV to watch and is of greater importance. So far anyway, subject to change in crisis.