Jump to content

141 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Most legal scholars who have considered the question of a requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage argue forcefully that the requirement is within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Take Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a renowned constitutional law scholar, author of four popular treatises and casebooks on constitutional law, and Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law. Professor Chemerinsky has gone so far to say that those arguing on the other side of the issue do not have “the slightest merit from a constitutional perspective.”

In arguing that a requirement to have health coverage falls within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Professor Chemerinsky compares health care reform to the case of Gonzales v. Raich — often cited by the other side.

In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Government’s Commerce Clause powers extend to the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Professor Chemerinsky notes that the relationship between health care coverage and the national economy is even clearer than the cultivation and possession involved in Gonzales v. Raich.

.....

Mark Hall, law professor at Wake Forest University chimes in. Professor Hall’s article is a comprehensive, peer-reviewed analysis of the constitutionality of a Federal individual responsibility requirement. In it, Professor Hall concludes that there are no plausible Tenth Amendment or States’ rights issues arising from the imposition by Congress of an individual responsibility to maintain health coverage.

Professor Hall notes further that health care and health insurance both affect and are distributed through interstate commerce. And that gives Congress the power to legislate a coverage requirement using its Commerce Clause powers.

Professor Hall notes that the Supreme Court indicated in its decisions in United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez — two other cases relied on by the other side — that the non-economic, criminal nature of the conduct in those cases was central to the court’s decisions in those cases that the Government had not appropriately exercised power under the Commerce Clause.

Health insurance, on the other hand, does not deal with criminal conduct. Health insurance is commercial and economic in nature and, to reiterate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

Health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy. National health spending is 17.6 percent of the economy. And it is projected to increase from $2.5 trillion in 2009 to $4.7 trillion in 2019.

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

LOL, using this arguement, they could force you to buy cars from GM, force you to buy groceries from Wal-Mart, etc..

The precedent here they would be setting up in astounding.

As I've said though, if the supreme court dares to uphold it, then there will be hell to pay.

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, has stated:

“In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of ‘commerce’ as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate.”

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, has stated:

“In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of ‘commerce’ as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate.”

This argument is complete bullshit.

UCSA - United Communist States Of America: We're Here To Take Over The 'Market' Comrade!

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center similarly concluded:

“The fundamental point behind pushing people into the private insurance market is to make sure that uninsured individuals who can pay for health insurance don't impose costs on other tax payers.”

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center similarly concluded:

“The fundamental point behind pushing people into the private insurance market is to make sure that uninsured individuals who can pay for health insurance don't impose costs on other tax payers.”

That's easy. You don't pay, you don't play.

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Professor Michael Dorf of the Cornell University Law School noted that:

“[T]he individual mandate is ‘plainly adapted’ to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional.”

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

Professor Michael Dorf of the Cornell University Law School noted that:

“[T]he individual mandate is ‘plainly adapted’ to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional.”

Again, wrong. You cannot say this without looking at the consequences of adding those people on to an already over-burdened system. If anything those who would argue the damage caused by even more people utilizing this system would win the day hands down.

As I said before though, people can claim this all they want, but they're setting a precedent unlike any other and can literally force your hand to buy anything they 'feel' effects the economy as a whole.

What about the effect a decision like this has on state/local budgets/economies. The national economy isn't the only thing to look at. What might be good for NYC, isn't necessarily good for Atlanta. What might be for Dallas may not be good for Seattle, etc...

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
Posted

everyone will have to buy a gun every year. failure to do so will result in a fine of $1,000 each year, which will be disbursed to the local police departments based on a percentage of the local populace that refuses to buy firearms. as with concealed carry permits, those being fined will be a matter of public record and accessible to anyone.

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted

Most legal scholars who have considered the question of a requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage argue forcefully that the requirement is within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

What interstate commerce? Health insurance cannot be traded across state lines!

biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

What interstate commerce? Health insurance cannot be traded across state lines!

They can regulate commerce among the states, nothing about it being 'interstate' there.

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted

LOL, using this arguement, they could force you to buy cars from GM, force you to buy groceries from Wal-Mart, etc..

The precedent here they would be setting up in astounding.

As I've said though, if the supreme court dares to uphold it, then there will be hell to pay.

Can you imagine... not only does the health insurance industry get 30 million new

customers, they also get 15,000 new IRS agents working overtime to protect their

revenue stream.

What a deal! :wow:

biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

Can you imagine... not only does the health insurance industry get 30 million new

customers, they also get 15,000 new IRS agents working overtime to protect their

revenue stream.

What a deal! :wow:

I'd actually be willing to make a sacrifice/trade here.

De-centralize our banks and I'll sign up for their health care program. Abolish the Fed, return money powers to the treasury, take the dollar off the 'market' and have it backed by several commodities.

Than we can talk.

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...