House passes Senate health care bill

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are you dense?

12 states are reportedly getting ready to challenge this on EXACTLY what doglover is talking about.

There is no way in hell the US Federal Government has the right to force someone to buy health insurance or face fines. I do not for one second believe that the Supreme Court would EVER allow anything like that.

Their grounds are quite different, actually.

Their argument still isn't all that strong--but it's better than doglover's.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Azure

Really? Roberts isn't going to vote that it is constitutional. Neither is Alito.

Kennedy could also vote that it's Constitutional. I put him in the "unconstitutional" group because he's been restrictive of the Commerce Clause in the past, but this wouldn't be the first time that he's been inconsistent on an issue. I think Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Thomas and Scalia are pretty much guaranteed to come down where I have them.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

All of these people are incredibly smart and qualified lawyers who are thinking not only of politics but of their own historical legacies.

Have you read a Thomas decision?

Originally Posted by doglover

so you think it's constitutional for force citizens to buy private insurance for face a tax?
good to know.
oh and there are members on the supreme court who would disagree with you, but apparently an armchair constitutional scholar such as yourself knows better

There are also members of the Supreme Court who would disagree with you. I'm not sure how that proves any point other than that this is going to be a contested issue with a lot of smart people (along with a lot of not so smart people) on either side.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Their grounds are quite different, actually.

Their argument still isn't all that strong--but it's better than doglover's.

I think their argument is VERY strong.

Especially considering past interpretations of the 9th amendment.

Nevermind the 10th amendment.

[CaptainCrunch]

So will a supreme court challenge to this stop the health care bill in its tracks?

How long would a constitution case take to run through the courts?

This is all just terribly interesting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So will a supreme court challenge to this stop the health care bill in its tracks?

How long would a constitution case take to run through the courts?

This is all just terribly interesting.

I don't know how much power a challenge could have, but if the Supreme Court votes that the bill is unconstitutional the Democrats are going to have to revise it.

This is far from over. I would laugh like a fat kid with candy if the Democrats were forced to go back to the drawing board again.

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess I'm wondering if the supreme court can grant injunctions against the government implementing this bill?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess I'm wondering if the supreme court can grant injunctions against the government implementing this bill?

I'm actually wondering the same thing. The bill will be challenged tomorrow when Obama signs it, and I'm wondering how the Supreme Court would respond.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by doglover

so you think it's constitutional for force citizens to buy private insurance for face a tax?
good to know.
oh and there are members on the supreme court who would disagree with you, but apparently an armchair constitutional scholar such as yourself knows better

The funny thing about my armchair is I can see my law degree from it

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

The funny thing about my armchair is I can see my law degree from it

Your arrogance is apparently blinding enough that you don't realize that there is something VERY unconstitutional about forcing people to buy insurance.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by valo403

The funny thing about my armchair is I can see my law degree from it

I believe that's what the kids call "ownage".

[Azure]

Tennessee is also filing suit upon signing by the President.

Getting very interesting.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think their argument is VERY strong.

Especially considering past interpretations of the 9th amendment.

Nevermind the 10th amendment.

I'm curious as to how you think the 9th amendment is relevant. It deals with individual rights (not state rights), and stipulates only that rights other than those enumerated in the constitution are possible, not what they are. It's literally one line--though I'll agree a very important one... just not especially relevant here. It's very relevant if you're talking about Roe v. Wade, but it does not create rights otherwise not enumerated, it merely accepts that they could exist.

The tenth amendment could be more interesting--but it doesn't seem to me that this legislation meets the test that Scalia specified in striking down Brady--that the states would be required to administer a federally mandated program. I don't think there's a very strong case there, unless the states can somehow argue that the burden of responsibility for this program falls on them.

Note that both of these are completely different from what doglover was saying--which was (though not with much eloquence) that Article One of the constitution prohibits this bill.... which is utterly risible. I'd say these challenges would be strong-er--but are still desperation moves in the end.

Think of it this way: if the GOP were confident in the legal challenge, they wouldn't have spent the last year fighting the legislation tooth-and-nail. They would just have taken advantage of the opportunity to embarrass the Dems by having their first big bill get struck down by the courts.

[Envitro]

I think there will be a constitutional judgment against the Dems and they'll go back and be forced to provide a new, revised bill with a Public Option, publicly funded that is not considered "undue taxation".

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Azure

Tennessee is also filing suit upon signing by the President.

Getting very interesting.

Hardly interesting - All you have is Republican Attorney Generals towing the party line at the tax payers expense.

I'll get you $10 this doesn't get overturned by the SC.

This is just the republicans trying to save face after getting beat on the bill.

[SeeBass]

forcing people to buy insurance...good luck with that one

I guess nobody has heard of car insurance

perhaps some of you need to read David Frums recent article a view from a level headed right winger

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Your arrogance is apparently blinding enough that you don't realize that there is something VERY unconstitutional about forcing people to buy insurance.

I've never said that there is absolutely no possible argument, my responses have been directed at someone who thinks that saying 'it's unconstitutional' makes it so.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Azure

Tennessee is also filing suit upon signing by the President.

Getting very interesting.

maybe to the poorly informed

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm curious as to how you think the 9th amendment is relevant. It deals with individual rights (not state rights), and stipulates only that rights other than those enumerated in the constitution are possible, not what they are.

Forcing people to buy health insurance or be subject to fines violates those individual rights. Besides, like I said before the Constitution does not grant right to the government to force people to buy a commercial product.

The tenth amendment could be more interesting--

And a completely different issue. Not necessarily the one I think will cause all the problems either.

Although it will be very interesting how the Commerce Clause will be brought into play here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by amorak

Hardly interesting - All you have is Republican Attorney Generals towing the party line at the tax payers expense.

I'll get you $10 this doesn't get overturned by the SC.

This is just the republicans trying to save face after getting beat on the bill.

If they force this issue to the Supreme Court you actually think the Supreme Court will uphold a bill that forces people to buy insurance or be subject to fine?

I didn't realize the Constitution allowed for such a law.

[Azure]

From Wikipedia.

National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010[update], 30 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Virginia.[11] Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010.[12] On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance. On March 17, 2010, the Governor of Idaho signed a bill requiring the Attorney General to sue the Federal Government if Idaho residents are required to buy health insurance.[13]

30 states, eh?