The Constitutionality of Individual Mandates

[TBoneTX 45,663]

they also get 15,000 new IRS agents working overtime to protect their revenue stream.

It's 16,500 new IRS agents. If this new mandate is so desirable, why are more brownshirts being hired to enforce it? "America Held Socialist, Day 3."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Robert Shapiro, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, stated: “Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the individual mandate, or of health care reform generally, it would be surprising if the Constitution prohibited a democratic resolution of the issue. Happily, it does not.”

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Read Wickard v. Filburn (1942).......

Aware of the case quite well actually and it was a very wrong decision for what he was doing. He really wasn't harming anyone and the idea that it effects the overall economy that much is BS.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Paul, be honest here - what do you think is the likelihood that any of these lawsuits will hold up in court? These aren't just liberal law professors trying to twist the Constitution...this is their expertise. With so much at stake, it would have been stupid for the President and Congress not to consult with constitutional scholars on individual mandates.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Aware of the case quite well actually and it was a very wrong decision for what he was doing. He really wasn't harming anyone and the idea that it effects the overall economy that much is BS.

Whether or not you think it was a good decision is immaterial. In the case, the decision was made on a macro level, not a micro one. There are issues that have much larger implications that go beyond the scope of a single farmer, this is one of them. It is a relavent case precedent that will undoubtedly be cited if any of these frivolous lawsuits come to fruition.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, be honest here - what do you think is the likelihood that any of these lawsuits will hold up in court? These aren't just liberal law professors trying to twist the Constitution...this is their expertise. With so much at stake, it would have been stupid for the President and Congress not to consult with constitutional scholars on individual mandates.

Depends on how much the current supreme court is willing to stretch the constitution, and i mean STRETCH.

In all reality though, with 14 states filing lawsuits so far and 36 total states working to legislatively block the mandate, the supreme court's hands might actually be tied. It could be a forced upon issue as that is 2/3 of all states disagreeing with the legislation for a multitude of reasons.

This isn't to mention the backlash of individuals who might take things into their own hands if the courts uphold the federal mandate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Whether or not you think it was a good decision is immaterial. In the case, the decision was made on a macro level, not a micro one. There are issues that have much larger implications that go beyond the scope of a single farmer, this is one of them. It is a relavent case precedent that will undoubtedly be cited if any of these frivolous lawsuits come to fruition.

These lawsuits aren't frivolous though.

In that case, this was an individual who 'went over the alloted limit.' - The only case that could be similar is if someone was putting too much money into their HSA possibly.

There's a stark difference in actually REQUIRING that someone purchase a product out there, especially on a federal level. You're getting into the territory of an outright soft tyranny over the markets now in this case. You'd be giving the government literally unlimited power on commerce and allowing them to do as they wish, without an reprecusions. You're crossing the lines of the 9th and 10th amendment here as well and creating a situation that can harm local economies as well.

One way or another, this mandate will go in its present form. The only way they could keep this mandate is to make it into another sort of 'medicare' tax on your income. Outside of that though, forcing purchase/fining people for not buying is not within the scope of law, no matter how much someone wants to bastardize it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Depends on how much the current supreme court is willing to stretch the constitution, and i mean STRETCH.

In all reality though, with 14 states filing lawsuits so far and 36 total states working to legislatively block the mandate, the supreme court's hands might actually be tied. It could be a forced upon issue as that is 2/3 of all states disagreeing with the legislation for a multitude of reasons.

This isn't to mention the backlash of individuals who might take things into their own hands if the courts uphold the federal mandate.

There you go again with the passive threats of citizens taking to the streets in some sort of armed rebellion against the governments health care reform. No offense, but this just makes you look like a paranoid delusional and naive. People aren't going to rebel, there is not going to be a civil war. Hell, a plurality of people in the country are glad that the legislation passed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Depends on how much the current supreme court is willing to stretch the constitution, and i mean STRETCH.

If they rule the health care bill constitutional by referencing the Commerce Clause, I hope that'll shut you up.

In all reality though, with 14 states filing lawsuits so far and 36 total states working to legislatively block the mandate, the supreme court's hands might actually be tied. It could be a forced upon issue as that is 2/3 of all states disagreeing with the legislation for a multitude of reasons.

This isn't to mention the backlash of individuals who might take things into their own hands if the courts uphold the federal mandate.

36? That's news to me. From what I heard, four of the Attorneys General are running for Governor, so some of this political posturing. Like I said the other day, it'll be interesting to see the legal arguments coming from those who are questioning the constitutionality of the bill, particularly when so many prominent constitutional scholars have weighed in, all saying this bill is clearly constitutional.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There you go again with the passive threats of citizens taking to the streets in some sort of armed rebellion against the governments health care reform. No offense, but this just makes you look like a paranoid delusional and naive. People aren't going to rebel, there is not going to be a civil war. Hell, a plurality of people in the country are glad that the legislation passed.

Standing for liberty is never paranoid delusional or naive.

I honestly feel sorry for the taxman who tries to fine people who don't buy. They should have fear in their jobs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There you go again with the passive threats of citizens taking to the streets in some sort of armed rebellion against the governments health care reform. No offense, but this just makes you look like a paranoid delusional and naive. People aren't going to rebel, there is not going to be a civil war. Hell, a plurality of people in the country are glad that the legislation passed.

Agreed. Paul, it's nothing short of treasonous to have a disregard of the legitimacy our branches of government. You don't have to agree with decisions or policies, but when you talk of people taking up arms in protest, that is just wrong and unAmerican. There are avenues within our system to fight for change. Resorting to talk of violence is teetering on terrorism.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Standing for liberty is never paranoid delusional or naive.

I honestly feel sorry for the taxman who tries to fine people who don't buy. They should have fear in their jobs.

Do you not grasp the concept of how taxes are collected in this digital age? Seriously, you can stop with the outdated catch phrases.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Agreed. Paul, it's nothing short of treasonous to have a disregard of the legitimacy our branches of government. You don't have to agree with decisions or policies, but when you talk of people taking up arms in protest, that is just wrong and unAmerican. There are avenues within our system to fight for change. Resorting to talk of violence is teetering on terrorism.

Actually that is quite American. Defending liberty above all else is and always should be the American way.

I would suggest you research and understand truly the entire situation regarding the Boston Tea Party. You might learn something and see how much of it fits to this situation today.

Do you not grasp the concept of how taxes are collected in this digital age? Seriously, you can stop with the outdated catch phrases.

Apparently people who fly planes into IRS buildings grasp it quite well.

[Peikko 1,575]

Standing for liberty is never paranoid delusional or naive.

I honestly feel sorry for the taxman who tries to fine people who don't buy. They should have fear in their jobs.

So your answer to legislation you don't like is to beat up on those who's job it is to implement the legislation, not those who actually create it? You are as irrational as 'plane into building' guy.

[TBoneTX 45,663]

a plurality of people in the country are glad that the legislation passed.

Citation, please?