How does the interstate commerce clause allow a mandate to buy health insurance?
If I have no insurance I’m not involved in commerce and when I need health care I pay cash in my state which doesn’t cross state lines and therefore does not give federal government jurisdiction over my transaction.
The individual mandate is NOT legal, in that it exceeds the power of Congress granted to it by the US Constitution. If they can force us to buy health insurance, then they can force us to buy anything they think we should own. The idea that this is covered under the interstate commerce clause is ludicrous… the fact that the federal government regulates milk prices doesn’t mean they can pass a law requiring us to purchase milk.
The objections to the individual mandate are three-fold. First, because federal law prohibits us from purchasing health insurance across state lines, then it is NOT INTERSTATE commerce and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress under the interstate commerce clause. Second, even if it WERE regulatable by Congress, NOT buying health insurance isn’t commerce of any sort, and therefore purchase of it cannot be mandated. Third, if Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance, then they can mandate the purchase of any product they think we should own… such as a GM car or low-fat food.
April 1st, 2010 at 9:11 am
It doesn’t.
<gavel slams>
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 9:28 am
Very true. Hopefully this goes to the Supreme Court which Obama, so wisely, pissed off earlier this year.
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 9:56 am
It doesn’t , that argument won’t hold water, 0bama care will be defeated by the courts
References :
May God Bless you and keep our country safe from the pr0gressive axis of evil;0bama,Pel0si,& Reid
April 1st, 2010 at 10:26 am
It doesn’t. They would have an easier time using the establishment clause to justify this, which still would be BS considering that they don’t even read the whole clause.
The better thing they could have done was to first open up state boarders, then pass huge reform.
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 10:32 am
That’s their argument….. we will see how our justices rule on this one.
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 10:52 am
The same way the Constitution allows the President to bash the Supreme Court for making a decision he doesn’t like or call Congress "irresponsible" for not blindly passing his bullshit legislation without having taken the time to read it yet. The 1st Amendment gives him the right to speak and gripe about it, but nowhere in the Constitution does it give him the power to do something about it.
In this case, he has opened the federal government up to lawsuits from the states, and there’s no way the federal government can win Constitutionally. We’ll have to see what develops in the coming weeks.
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 11:42 am
I work for a State government and I know for a fact that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would make ANY Federal law, regulation or even a mission prevail over ANY state law!
EDIT: JP: The Tenth Amendment does not in any way, capacity or form restrict Federal government from passing statutes under the purview of "health, welfare" provisions. Can you tell me under what Article of the Constitution is the ability of Congress restricted in passing legislation that is deemed unconstitutional by states?
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 12:10 pm
The individual mandate is NOT legal, in that it exceeds the power of Congress granted to it by the US Constitution. If they can force us to buy health insurance, then they can force us to buy anything they think we should own. The idea that this is covered under the interstate commerce clause is ludicrous… the fact that the federal government regulates milk prices doesn’t mean they can pass a law requiring us to purchase milk.
The objections to the individual mandate are three-fold. First, because federal law prohibits us from purchasing health insurance across state lines, then it is NOT INTERSTATE commerce and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress under the interstate commerce clause. Second, even if it WERE regulatable by Congress, NOT buying health insurance isn’t commerce of any sort, and therefore purchase of it cannot be mandated. Third, if Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance, then they can mandate the purchase of any product they think we should own… such as a GM car or low-fat food.
References :
April 1st, 2010 at 12:19 pm
In my opinion, it clearly exceeds the authority granted in the Commerce Clause. And while it’s been expanded beyond recognition, the Commerce Clause has never been used to compel private citizens to enter contracts with private entities. I suspect that it will be framed as a taxation issue, i.e. the "penalty" is actually a tax, and that tax may be waived if people purchase an approved policy. This will attempt to construe the "mandate" as an option. At any rate, it should make for an interesting case.
Edit @ Sincere…above: The Supremacy clause is not the issue. It’s whether this Federal legislation is within the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Believe it or not, there are limits to Congressional power, and the argument is whether this exceeds those limits, not whether Constitutional Federal legislation trumps State law.
References :