Thread: Is the individual mandate constitutional?

So I decided to look this up.



The "no" argument, in part:

The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the "production, distribution or consumption of commodities," but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103033_pf.html



The "yes" argument, in part:

Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights� are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/200...lth-insurance/



I know one thing, this will no doubt be challenged in court.

[quote name='Blueneck' date='18 December 2009 - 06:44 AM' timestamp='1261147494' post='81963']

So I decided to look this up.



The "no" argument, in part:







http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103033_pf.html



The "yes" argument, in part:







http://www.healthreformwatch.com/200...lth-insurance/



I know one thing, this will no doubt be challenged in court.

[/quote]

Your "yes" argument made me laugh.



It is unconstitutional to force you to purchase anything!!

[quote name='michaelr' date='18 December 2009 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1261148293' post='81967']

Your "yes" argument made me laugh.



It is unconstitutional to force you to purchase anything!!

[/quote]



Good poll question. If they answer is yes, then the government can require you to do anything related to whatever it perceives to be the social contract.



All of which reminds me of the Borg for some reason. You will be absorbed....

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='18 December 2009 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1261148807' post='81969']

Good poll question. If they answer is yes, then the government can require you to do anything related to whatever it perceives to be the social contract.



All of which reminds me of the Borg for some reason. You will be absorbed....

[/quote]

It is in fact getting to the point where "resistance is futile"!

[quote name='michaelr' date='18 December 2009 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1261149370' post='81970']

It is in fact getting to the point where "resistance is futile"![/quote]



Never! Give me liberty or give me death!

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='18 December 2009 - 07:28 AM' timestamp='1261150094' post='81975']

Never! Give me liberty or give me death!

[/quote]

That is of course my stance as well, I wish the pukes would back off. They're looking like there is a dispute going on, they're using the same tactic in Copenhagen, and that is what it is, a tactic so resisters stand down. These people know damn good and well that their bills will pass. The sad thing is, if by chance I am wrong, then they simply split it up and add it to other bills. Soon the thing passes in its entirety.



They claim this country is not a dictatorship, yet the words I posted happens all the time, and that is a dictatorship!

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='18 December 2009 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1261150094' post='81975']

Never! Give me liberty or give me death![/quote]

Unfortunately, most people don't have the freedom to elect for euthanasia.

[quote name='webrockk' date='18 December 2009 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1261164020' post='82072']

Had a discussion about this with a friend. She said it would be no different than being forced to pay for car insurance. To which I answered: Driving is optional, considered a priveledge, and not a right...should health care coverage be compulsory, and concidered a right? She said it should be, and that diverted us into a completely different (and quite heated) argument. She predictably stormed off.



Such a premise will never pass the smell test of constitutionality.

[/quote]

You lost your argument. Driving is a right, but it is an option, I would have used that, it is accurate.



I had this argument on this board before, when I was done 100% agreed, and that sir/ma'am is a freaking record!