6th Circuit Court of Appeals: Individual Mandate Constitutional

awesome, so the commerce clause gives congress the power to enrich a certain type of company at the expense of the public. yeah, the republic is dead.
 
Because Republican's previously supported it means that it must be constitutional?

No, it means that a Republican jurist interpreting it as constitutional shouldn't be surpizing. Keep in mind that probably the majority of Republican resistance to HC reform is just a knee jerk reaction to oppose anything promoted by the Obama administration. There are quite a few elements of HC reform that originated with conservatives. The individual mandate is just one of them.
 
Why should that surprize you? The individual mandate was originally an idea that Republicans advanced.


Every decision to date has been along party lines with Republican-appointed judges ruling the act unconstitutional and Democrat-appointed judges upholding it. This is the first decision to break that trend and the trend was broken by a recently nominated orthodox conservative judge who clerked for the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
 
Every decision to date has been along party lines with Republican-appointed judges ruling the act unconstitutional and Democrat-appointed judges upholding it. This is the first decision to break that trend and the trend was broken by a recently nominated orthodox conservative judge who clerked for the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Good answer.
 
BTW, The Thomas Moore Law Center, the plaintiffs, was who provided the legal counciling and consultation for the Dover, PA Board of Education that lead to the infamous ID Creationism trial in which The Thomas Moore Center represented the defendants and were ruled against by a consevative federal jurist who was a Bush appointee.
 
wonder how many liberals would be 'up in arms' if congress/president (republican) mandated that all individuals buy and carry a gun?

Congress did that for able-bodied white males way back in the days of yore. And I'd be more than happy for the Republicans to propose something along those lines nationally. I cannot imagine it would be very popular, but that doesn't mean it would be unconstitutional. Interestingly, the first state to have a firearm mandate is believed to be Massachusetts, which I believe is the first state have a health insurance mandate.
 
Congress did that for able-bodied white males way back in the days of yore. And I'd be more than happy for the Republicans to propose something along those lines nationally. I cannot imagine it would be very popular, but that doesn't mean it would be unconstitutional. Interestingly, the first state to have a firearm mandate is believed to be Massachusetts, which I believe is the first state have a health insurance mandate.

Right...and correct me if I'm wrong, the Insurance mandate in Massachusets was implemented by a Republican Governor.
 
Congress did that for able-bodied white males way back in the days of yore. And I'd be more than happy for the Republicans to propose something along those lines nationally. I cannot imagine it would be very popular, but that doesn't mean it would be unconstitutional. Interestingly, the first state to have a firearm mandate is believed to be Massachusetts, which I believe is the first state have a health insurance mandate.

i know it was done. you didn't answer my question though. how many liberals would believe it's unconstitutional for congress to force everyone to buy AND carry a gun?
 
i know it was done. you didn't answer my question though. how many liberals would believe it's unconstitutional for congress to force everyone to buy AND carry a gun?

I don't know that forcing people to buy a gun is unconstitutional, but under US v. Lopez forcing people to carry would be.
 
I don't know that forcing people to buy a gun is unconstitutional, but under US v. Lopez forcing people to carry would be.

you're reading US v. Lopez wrong. that case ruled the gun free school zones act unconstitutional because simple possession could not be regulated by the commerce clause because possessing a gun is not interstate commerce. It has since been rewritten to identify that any part of the weapon whatsoever has traveled in interstate commerce, but it has not been challenged. SO, if possessing something is not considered interstate commerce, I fail to see how forcing someone to possess health insurance can be.
 
Everyone needs a house
Let's force everyone to buy a house
The cost of building houses will fall because we can make up new materials to create the houses.
No, the houses will not withstand any kind of bad weather
You'll get wet when it rains and if there's every some really big winds, we'll have to let you pay for the repairs.
No, you can't build your own.
You have to buy a house from our dealers
They have figured out all the best choices for you.
 
i thought republicans all walk in lock step...

this was interesting, given it is a huge argument thrown out by libs

Fourth, it declines to address whether the
provision is authorized by the General Welfare Clause
None of this affects the shared-responsibility payment, a penalty triggered by
failure to comply with the minimum coverage provision. Section 5000A is not a penalty
“provided by” chapter 68 of the Revenue Code. Congress placed the penalty in chapter
48 of the Revenue Code, and it did not include a provision treating the penalty as a “tax”
in the title, as it did with penalties provided in chapter 68. Distinct words have distinct
meanings. Congress said one thing in sections 6665(a)(2) and 6671(a), and something
else in section 5000A, and we should respect the difference. That is particularly so
where, as here, Congress had a reason for creating a difference: Unlike the penalties
listed in chapter 68, the shared responsibility payment has nothing to do with tax
enforcement. Cf. Mobile Republican Assembly v. United States, 353 F.3d 1357, 1362
n.5 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that “tax penalties imposed for substantive violations of
laws not directly related to the tax code” do not implicate the Anti-Injunction Act).
No. 10-2388 Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al. Page 13
Section 5000A(g)(1), it is true, says that “[t]he penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and . . . shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter
68.” 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(g)(1) (emphasis added). The assessable penalties under
subchapter B in turn “shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall
be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.” Id. § 6671(a). In the context
of a shared-responsibility payment to the United States for failing to buy medical
insurance, however, the most natural reading of the provision is that the “manner” of
assessment and collection mentioned in sections 5000A(g)(1) and 6671(a) refers to the
mechanisms the Internal Revenue Service employs to enforce penalties, not to the bar
against pre-enforcement challenges to taxes.

yeah, it is not the same, but yeah, it is like the same and yeah, it does point to the same code and is like basically the same, but no, well, yeah, it is different....:rolleyes:

Furthermore, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the practice of selfinsuring
for the cost of health care, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate
commerce. An estimated 18.8% of the non-elderly United States population (about 50
million people) had no form of health insurance for 2009

then expand medicare, don't force others to enter the market. the court waxed on and on, but there simply is no constitutional authority to force every citizen into the market
 
you're reading US v. Lopez wrong. that case ruled the gun free school zones act unconstitutional because simple possession could not be regulated by the commerce clause because possessing a gun is not interstate commerce. It has since been rewritten to identify that any part of the weapon whatsoever has traveled in interstate commerce, but it has not been challenged. SO, if possessing something is not considered interstate commerce, I fail to see how forcing someone to possess health insurance can be.

Forcing someone to own something is interstate commerce. Forcing someone to carry something on their person is not. The former is economic activity, the latter is not. So you can force people to own guns and you can force people to own health insurance but you cannot force someone to carry a gun on them or to carry "health insurance" on them.
 
then expand medicare, don't force others to enter the market. the court waxed on and on, but there simply is no constitutional authority to force every citizen into the market

They're already in the market, Yurt. That's the point you're missing.
 
Back
Top