Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

NYT: Judges Weigh Limits of Health Care Law


LeesburgSkinFan

Recommended Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/us/politics/09arguments.html

Most interesting part of this article is that former solicitor General Paul Clement is arguing for the states. in 2005, Mr. Clement won a case called Gonzalez v.s Raich where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's authority over commerce was so broad that it could regulate even an individual's home cultivation of medical marijuana, when deemed legal by the state. Now that precedent is central to the Obama administration's defense of the Affordable Care Act and the right to have the health insurance mandate.

Interesting how depending on the issue, the legal principles change. It's why phrases such as activist judge are silly. Both sides are activists when it suits their politics and their views of right and wrong. In this case pot was such a "horrible blight upon mankind" that the Bush administration threw aside any talk of states rights or limits on the commerce clause to stop sick people from growing it. Yet here, Congress is overreaching and stomping on states rights with the indiviual mandate.

In the article it seems the judges may leaning towards invalidating the ACA. It says, "The judges repeatedly posed formulations of that question to Mr. Katyal. "If they could compel this, what purchase could they not compel?" Judge Marcus asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've always liked the contrast of the people who will claim that the federal government can jail people for growing marijuana on their own land, for their own use, or for use within the state, because that production might affect the price of marijuana in some other state, therefore it's interstate commerce, even if it's for your own use. But that requiring people to insure themselves is unconstitutional.

Or the ones who argue that health insurance is a state matter, but that if a state passes laws saying that all insurance sold in the state must comply with certain rules, then any insurance company that's outside the state should be exempt from that state's laws.

But then, let's face it. If you're just now noticing that people (of all persuasions) have a bit of a consistency problem with some of their positions, then you've been asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its easier in your own life if you're consistent...

This bill is full of loopholes and things that need fixin.

Mandating the insurance may not be Constitutional, its also stupid. You cannot have a 700$ fine for not buying 7000$ worth of insurance.

It will be the mess that is Mass.

You either have to have a VAT or Income tax for those that make 60k+ or cut another program for 1tril+ (Korea/Germany/Iraq/Yemen/Phillipines/Afghan/) might pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've always liked the contrast of the people who will claim that the federal government can jail people for growing marijuana on their own land, for their own use, or for use within the state, because that production might affect the price of marijuana in some other state, therefore it's interstate commerce, even if it's for your own use. But that requiring people to insure themselves is unconstitutional.

Preach on, preacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...