6th Circuit Court of Appeals: Individual Mandate Constitutional

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.

The above highlights the slippery slope of the individual mandate. there is very little the government couldn't FORCE upon the populace. They can proclaim almost anything falls under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court should and will reject this portion of the law.
 
The above highlights the slippery slope of the individual mandate. there is very little the government couldn't FORCE upon the populace. They can proclaim almost anything falls under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court should and will reject this portion of the law.

We'll see.
 
Divided Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare’s individual mandate

Says Jonathan Adler:

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Martin, has upheld the individual mandate against a Commerce Clause challenge. The same panel, in an opinion by Judge Sutton, rejected the argument that the mandate can be sustained as an exercise of the federal government’s taxing power (which means, to date, no court has accepted the taxing power argument).

Here’s the decision, and Ed Morrissey has more over at Hot Air. This ruling doesn’t concern the massive multi-state case against ObamaCare, which is important to keep in mind. Today’s ruling deals with the Thomas More Law Center’s case. This will all end up at the Supreme Court in any regard, so let’s pray that Anthony Kennedy wakes up on the Right side of the bed they day they hand down their ruling.


A summary of the dissent -
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power? The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit (within
boundaries like the First Amendment and Due Process Clause), as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 565 (“[D]epending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked
upon as commercial.”). Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.
 
you're missing the point, the government does not have authority to force people to purchase insurance because some people who "self insure" aren't on medicare. hence...EXPAND medicare.

Whether people are on Medicare is irrelevant. I'm not really following you there.
 
Right...and correct me if I'm wrong, the Insurance mandate in Massachusets was implemented by a Republican Governor.

Well, yes, you are wrong. It was implemented by a Dem governor, Deval Patrick.

It was mandated by Mitt, a con, who happened to own 40 billion worth of Mass health insurance companies through Bain Capital at the time he mandated that all mass citizens must buy health insurance. No conflict of interest there or anything though, just business as usual, especialy here in Mass.
 
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.

do you really think that the framers of the constitution wrote the commerce clause with the intention of allowing the central government, one they wanted limited, the power to force people to participate in interstate commerce? can you show us that in any of the constitutional convention minutes, federalist/anti-federalist papers?
 
The above highlights the slippery slope of the individual mandate. there is very little the government couldn't FORCE upon the populace. They can proclaim almost anything falls under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court should and will reject this portion of the law.

it will be irrelevant whether they reject it or not. millions of us will not participate. then what will they do?
 
Lower gas prices now! Force everyone to pay for gas evenly and then gas will be affordable for all. The people who don't buy gas right now are the reason gas is so expensive. If we made everyone buy gas, the price of gas would come down

Let's force everyone to buy gas on an annual basis and simply issue a card for people to consume as much gas as they want. The people who are not driving and not presently consuming gas will be the new money we bring into the system to fund the program.

Nope, it doesn't matter if you don't own a car
 
i know they said that they'll deduct it from your tax returns, but some of us are smart enough to ensure that taxes turn out pretty even. then what?
If you're talking about the penalty for not having insurance:
Speaking from experience, as far as the IRS goes, you'll be served with a lien.
I do think they'll have no problem holding your SS benefits hostage.
LOL the liberals all claim it won't happen, but they didn't read the bill. Some democrats even joked about not reading it.
Ask anyone familiar with the IRS and you'll confirm there will be liens and if you try to avoid that, you're not going to be able to get your SS. I doubt they'll screw with people over medicaid, but you never know.
 
One of them ruled it was perfectly acceptable power of the Congress to force you to purchase whatever they please...

I dread that idea and hope the SCOTUS rules a bit more wisely.
 
it will be irrelevant whether they reject it or not. millions of us will not participate. then what will they do?

While I agree that if left as is millions will not participate, it is still relevant. If the Supreme Court states it is unconstitutional, then there is no way they can fine/tax us for not participating. If the Supreme Court upholds the 6th, then they CAN tax/fine us. I would say that is pretty relevant to the potential outcome. One way is back to where we are today, the other is going to lead to a fight (at least for some)
 
If you're talking about the penalty for not having insurance:
Speaking from experience, as far as the IRS goes, you'll be served with a lien.
I do think they'll have no problem holding your SS benefits hostage.
LOL the liberals all claim it won't happen, but they didn't read the bill. Some democrats even joked about not reading it.
Ask anyone familiar with the IRS and you'll confirm there will be liens and if you try to avoid that, you're not going to be able to get your SS. I doubt they'll screw with people over medicaid, but you never know.

liens. well, I do not own any property, so what will they file a lien against? and my SS???? LOL, how they gonna do that when SS will be bankrupt by the time i'm due to get it?
 
While I agree that if left as is millions will not participate, it is still relevant. If the Supreme Court states it is unconstitutional, then there is no way they can fine/tax us for not participating. If the Supreme Court upholds the 6th, then they CAN tax/fine us. I would say that is pretty relevant to the potential outcome. One way is back to where we are today, the other is going to lead to a fight (at least for some)

I did indeed mistate myself. It's irrelevant if the USSC upholds the 6th circuit, because millions will die.
 
Back
Top