I was just listening to another debate and another liberal arguing that the commerce clause in the Constitution gives the Government the right to force us to buy health insurance. This is just silly and dangerous and I hope this nonsense is overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Commerce Clause says this:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The Congress can regulate commerce, they can't force you to buy a product.

This violates the liberty and freedom of this country and it's amazing to me that Obama, Pelosi and Reid actually has us discussing if it's okay for the Government to force you to buy a product. This is America, not Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

If this stands then America is in deep trouble.

The Government can say the cost of dental care is going up so we want to force everyone to buy at least 1 toothbrush and one tube of toothpaste.

They can say in order to save the planet, every American has to own a hybrid vehicle.

It can go on and on. The Commerce clause doesn't give them this power and if this is allowed to stand, it's truly a sad day in America.

Yup. The Federal government does not have the power to force every single citizen of the United States to purchase a product or service, or be punished (fined) if you don't. This is definitely not in the powers vested to the Federal government through the U.S. Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

From the Declaration of Independence.


"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it"

I think its time!

www.gotfr.org

A lot of the whole problem with the misinterpretation of this whole thing is the use of the words in today's world compared to when they were written.

Regulate, legal definition-to bring into conformity with a rule, principle, or usage

This is what it means. Not to mandate. It's legal meaning when it was adopted meant to make regular, as in to make it uniform.

This is just the absolute bull#, our gubment expects us to put up with. Obfuscation and lies. Period.

Wasn't it in 1938 ina case about wheat farmer using his own product and selling the max allowed by law the court held his personal use was regulated as well? Senseless thinking since the product was withheld from the market. But i believe that case set the unprecedented expansion of the commerce clause. Hmm and so soon after that 1933 business as well.

gj

Ah, the Commerce clause... This is the back door...

The loose or restrictive interpretation of this clause, by the Supreme Court, will make or break the HCR or any other similar act.

Break it down:

Conservative wing:
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito

Liberal wing:
Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer

Middle but leans Conservative:
Justice Kennedy

Unknown:
Justice Sotomeyer (though thought to lean Liberal)

Traditionally, those Justices who lean Conservative will be more likely to adhere to stricter constitutional guidelines (less govt. control, authority over the states) while the opposite is true for the more Liberal Justices. With Kennedy routinely leaning Conservative, there is an edge.

If the HCR act lands in the Supreme Court, it will be VERY interesting to see what happens...

In 1942, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat grown for home consumption as part of a general regulation of farm production.
People who grew wheat at home substituted it for wheat products they would otherwise purchase in the market; cumulatively, this practice had a substantial effect on interstate farm prices.
Similarly, in 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that Congress could regulate marijuana grown for home consumption as part of a general ban on controlled substances, because Congress reasonably concluded that people would substitute homegrown marijuana for other marijuana purchased in black markets.
The individual mandate taxes people who do not buy health insurance. Critics charge that these people are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies.
All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, like people who substitute homegrown marijuana or wheat for purchased crops, the cumulative effect of uninsured people’s behavior undermines Congress’s regulation — in this case, its regulation of health insurance markets. Because Congress believes that national health care reform won’t succeed unless these people are brought into national risk pools, it can regulate their activities in order to make its general regulation of health insurance effective.
One final argument against the individual mandate is that it violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing the government to take property without just compensation. “Takings” occur when the government seizes property from particular individuals; a familiar example is a local government’s taking of land by eminent domain. Ordinary income taxes and excise taxes that are levied on a large population and that regulate people’s behavior by taxing their income or consumption choices are not considered takings under the Constitution.
The individual mandate is just such a tax — not a taking. Although opponents will challenge the individual mandate in court, constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law.
To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current Court for staging such a constitutional revolution.
Financial and other disclosures provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Source Information
From Yale Law School, New Haven, CT.
This article (10.1056/NEJMp1000087) was published on January 13, 2010, at NEJM.org.
References

1. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
2. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
3. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
4. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

The Congress can regulate commerce, they can't force you to buy a product. This violates the liberty and freedom of this country and it's amazing to me that Obama, Pelosi and Reid actually has us discussing if it's okay for the Government to force you to buy a product. This is America, not Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything of the such. However, no longer can freeloaders trot around without some coverage and expect everyone else to foot the bill when they go to the ER or catch a cold.

If you don't want to carry some type of health coverage from an insurance company of your choice, than you will have to pay a fine by way of taxes. But, if you fail to pay said fine you know what they'll do? Nothing!

On the enforcement of the mandate, the bill states:

(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty posed by this section, such taxpayer shall NOT be subject to ANY prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

So the penalty for not getting insurance is a fine, and the penalty for not paying the fine is NOTHING!!!!!!!

If this stands then America is in deep trouble.

AHHHHH! Run for your lives!! Obama, Pelosi, Reid, oh my! The horror!! Everyone will be covered by insurance, why God, why?!!!

The Government can say the cost of dental care is going up so we want to force everyone to buy at least 1 toothbrush and one tube of toothpaste.

Ewww! Please tell me the government doesn't have to tell you to brush your teeth.

I used to own a business. I was required to carry insurance by the government, and it was expected that I have insurance by my customers or they didn't use my services. It protected me in case I screwed something up I would lose my business paying for any damages. It also protected my customers if I screwed something of theirs up they knew it would be replaced at no cost to them. Win-Win. Doctors are required to carry insurance, lawyers, veterinarians, mechanics, car dealers, building contractors, McDonalds, and ALL car drivers.

They can say in order to save the planet, every American has to own a hybrid vehicle.

You are horribly misinformed. "They" can NOT. They can however impose a tax on polluters of the environment. And "they" do, by way of fines for littering, carbon polluting, dumping crap in our water, etc. It is a way for government to protect the people. You do want your government to do that, right?

It can go on and on.

I find that phrase used a lot by people who only have talking points and no facts. Translation: I have nothing else, but I want you to think I do, so you won't challenge me.






[edit on 8-4-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

The Commerce clause doesn't give them this power and if this is allowed to stand, it's truly a sad day in America.

Yes, it certainly does, and it's a great day for the people of this country to be able to come together, pool our money together, and get a better price for health coverage without pre-existing conditions for all Americans.

Praise be to America on this glorious day, when we stood up and said enough! Enough of the insurance companies gouging us with higher rates year after year.
Enough of denying the children, the elderly, and the sick health coverage in their time of need.
Enough of having freeloaders going to the ER without health insurance and we all having to pay their bills because of their irresponsibility.
Enough of being job locked for fear of losing our health coverage.
Enough of the untold bankruptcies due to being sick or injured.
Enough of the 45,000 of our fellow countrymen dying each year from lack of coverage.

I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on this as I have already taken the liberals to school on this issue dozens of times. But, I would like to address the "Welfare" clause. It states, in part "..and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.” No where in there does it say anything about the CITIZENS. At the time the Constitution was written, "General welfare" was framed around Common Law and sovereignty. Ergo, the obligation of the US Government was to defend the country and maintain an environment that would NOT permit INFRINGEMENTS upon sovereign individuals. Ironically, this law does EXACTLY that what the clause was designed to prevent!

When having these debates it would be helpful if people actually knew what they were talking about! Instead we have Congressmen citing the "Good and welfare clause" as the permissable portion of the Constitution. There should be a civics test that EVERY politicians MUST pass in order to serve!