Is The Administration's Medical Insurance Plan Constitutional?
Anarcissie
Administration's current medical insurance plan as
it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
insurance from private insurers. However, there
does not seem to be any Constituional provision
empowering the Federal government to compel
one class of private citizens to give money to another.
Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
that less-wealthy people give their money to
more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
speaking. I suppose the Court's recent decision with
respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
courts decided it was all right for state and local
governments to take property away from private
persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
I expect some sort of legal argument to be
constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
know if there are any sketches of it making the
rounds yet.
Phlip
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> insurance from private insurers.
You understand wrong. Stop listening to HMO lobbyists. If you don't
want to pay, you might get inferior service, but you
_won't_go_bankrupt_.
BTW, the front page of todays NYTimes sez that the last round of
speeches in congress were _written_ by the lobbyists. Congress (and
most of the MSM) is nothing more than their puppets these days.
Escape the cult, dude!
Anarcissie
<21a17a92-ab37-42e1...@z3g2000prd.google
groups.com>,
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
I said nothing about anyone going bankrupt. I was
merely asking how the present bill would be justified
Constitutionally, for the reasons I gave.
Deadrat
33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were curious,
you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal history.
> As I
> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> insurance from private insurers. However, there
> does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> empowering the Federal government to compel
> one class of private citizens to give money to another.
What do you think taxation is?
> Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
> Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
> that less-wealthy people give their money to
> more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
> controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
> Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
> seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
> speaking.
Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
> I suppose the Court's recent decision with
> respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
> courts decided it was all right for state and local
> governments to take property away from private
> persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
> other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of the
cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London,
545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal government could not
determine the extent of a state's eminent domain rules, but that it was
up to the states' constitutions.
> The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
> for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
> strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
> I expect some sort of legal argument to be
> constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
> know if there are any sketches of it making the
> rounds yet.
Read Wickard v Filburn, 317US111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545US1
(2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the power
to reform health insurance laws.
Anarcissie
<u-idnZKrzsAEz53W...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> > Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> > it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
>
> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were curious,
> you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal history.
I'd prefer it if you didn't try to read my mind, unless
you have far more talent for it than you have showed
thus far.
> > As I
> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> > empowering the Federal government to compel
> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>
> What do you think taxation is?
Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
to the government, not to other private individuals or
groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
out, but then, this is Usenet.
> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
> > speaking.
>
> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
doing nothing, for example.
> > I suppose the Court's recent decision with
> > respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
> > courts decided it was all right for state and local
> > governments to take property away from private
> > persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
> > other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
>
> Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of the
> cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London,
> 545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal government could not
> determine the extent of a state's eminent domain rules, but that it was
> up to the states' constitutions.
LIke I said.
> > The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
> > for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
> > strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
> > I expect some sort of legal argument to be
> > constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
> > know if there are any sketches of it making the
> > rounds yet.
>
> Read Wickard v Filburn, 317US111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545US1
> (2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the power
> to reform health insurance laws.
Both of these decisions, especially the latter, are
grotesque violations of reason and common sense which
I have no doubt the present Supreme Court will follow
in spirit. However, I am curious as to the particular
gyrations and acrobatics which are likely to be
performed in this particular case. There are some
differences: in both cases given above, the people
involved were engaged in some kind of commercial or
at least potentially commercial activity which the
government forbade. In the case of medical insurance,
if what I read is correct, the law applies simply
because a person is breathing -- they need not be
engaged in any commercial activity whatever. So
whatever gyration is constructed will have to go beyond
those already established, will it not?
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-51E8D...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article
> <u-idnZKrzsAEz53W...@giganews.com>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
>> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
>> > Administration's current medical insurance plan as
>> > it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
>>
>> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were
>> curious, you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US
>> legal history.
>
> I'd prefer it if you didn't try to read my mind, unless
> you have far more talent for it than you have showed
> thus far.
This is a fair point. I shouldn't have assumed; I should have asked, and
I will correct myself now:
Aren't you really just pissed off about it and masking your irritation
with a claim of curiosity? Because, if you were really just curious,
wouldn't you have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal
history?
>> > As I
>> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
>> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
>> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
>> > empowering the Federal government to compel
>> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>>
>> What do you think taxation is?
>
> Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
> to the government, not to other private individuals or
> groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
> out, but then, this is Usenet.
Let's not get all literal-minded here. Taxation transfers money first to
the government, which then transfers it to individuals. So the result is
the same.
>> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
>> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
>> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
>> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
>> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
>> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
>> > speaking.
>>
>> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
>
>
> The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
> could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
> doing nothing, for example.
But these people aren't sitting at home doing nothing. They're out and
about and living their lives and taking the universal risks of getting
sick and injured. Their health care or failure to obtain it affects the
entire economy.
You might as well say that retired people sit at home and do nothing, so
paying them Social Security is unconstitutional. Already been decided.
>> > I suppose the Court's recent decision with
>> > respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
>> > courts decided it was all right for state and local
>> > governments to take property away from private
>> > persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
>> > other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
>>
>> Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of
>> the cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New
>> London, 545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal
>> government could not determine the extent of a state's eminent domain
>> rules, but that it was up to the states' constitutions.
>
> LIke I said.
Hardly. The Supreme Court didn't approve of states taking private
property to give to individuals. It said that whether this was proper
was up to the states under their own constitutions.
Do you really not understand the difference? Look up "federalist
system."
>> > The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
>> > for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
>> > strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
>> > I expect some sort of legal argument to be
>> > constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
>> > know if there are any sketches of it making the
>> > rounds yet.
>>
>> Read Wickard v Filburn, 317US111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich 545US1
>> (2005) to disabuse you of the notion that Congress doesn't have the
>> power to reform health insurance laws.
>
> Both of these decisions, especially the latter, are
> grotesque violations of reason and common sense which
> I have no doubt the present Supreme Court will follow
> in spirit.
Your opinion is noted. It's still the law.
> However, I am curious as to the particular
> gyrations and acrobatics which are likely to be
> performed in this particular case. There are some
> differences: in both cases given above, the people
> involved were engaged in some kind of commercial or
> at least potentially commercial activity which the
> government forbade. In the case of medical insurance,
> if what I read is correct, the law applies simply
> because a person is breathing -- they need not be
> engaged in any commercial activity whatever. So
> whatever gyration is constructed will have to go beyond
> those already established, will it not?
Supposing this gets to the Supreme Court, the gov will have to
demonstrate 1) that the law is necessary and proper to carrying out the
gov's duties, and 2) that regulating health insurance is pursuant to
regulating interstate commerce. Given the height of the bar for what
constitutes interstate commerce, this should be a slam dunk.
One word for ya: pandemic.
Anarcissie
<_uOdnfVwA49P753W...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:anarcissie-51E8D...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> > In article
> > <u-idnZKrzsAEz53W...@giganews.com>,
> > Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in news:anarcissie-
> >> 33A58A.120...@reader1.panix.com:
> >>
> >> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> >> > Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> >> > it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress.
> >>
> >> No, you're not; you're just pissed off about it. If you were
> >> curious, you'd have taken the trouble to look up some law and US
> >> legal history.
> >
> > I'd prefer it if you didn't try to read my mind, unless
> > you have far more talent for it than you have showed
> > thus far.
>
> This is a fair point. I shouldn't have assumed; I should have asked, and
> I will correct myself now:
>
> Aren't you really just pissed off about it and masking your irritation
> with a claim of curiosity? Because, if you were really just curious,
> wouldn't you have taken the trouble to look up some law and US legal
> history?
I looked around a bit and didn't see anything. To some
extent I don't know what to look for, even with Google
and Wikipedia at hand. So I've come to the fount of
wisdom that is Usenet, knowing in advance that I would
be disparaged for not already knowing the answer to my
question, which is of course the default procedure
here. But at least you seem to understand what the
question is, and why someone might ask it. I'm not
pissed off about it at all -- I have long since grown
used to corruption, iniquity and unreason in government
and find it more a source of humor than anger. Except
of course when it's my ox that's gored, which isn't
happening in this case. Yet.
> >> > As I
> >> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> >> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
> >> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> >> > empowering the Federal government to compel
> >> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
> >>
> >> What do you think taxation is?
> >
> > Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
> > to the government, not to other private individuals or
> > groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
> > out, but then, this is Usenet.
>
> Let's not get all literal-minded here. Taxation transfers money first to
> the government, which then transfers it to individuals. So the result is
> the same.
Yes, but the Constitution among other things is about
correct procedure. The Constitution says the
government can tax, and that it can spend money, but as
it's written it does not seem to authorize it to compel
payments from one private party to another.
> >> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
> >> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
> >> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
> >> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
> >> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
> >> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
> >> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
> >> > speaking.
> >>
> >> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
> >
> >
> > The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
> > could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
> > doing nothing, for example.
>
> But these people aren't sitting at home doing nothing. They're out and
> about and living their lives and taking the universal risks of getting
> sick and injured. Their health care or failure to obtain it affects the
> entire economy.
We don't know what they're doing, actually. Some
people engage in very, very little economic activity.
> You might as well say that retired people sit at home and do nothing, so
> paying them Social Security is unconstitutional. Already been decided.
No, Social Security is based on income or employment.
It's quite different. The medical insurance thing
seems more like a head tax -- but it's not actually a
tax. I'm sure it would be Constitutional for the
government to tax people with incomes or jobs
and appropriate the money to some sort of
medical-insurance agency like Medicare, but this is
different, because it's in effect a head tax and
because the receiver of the payment is a
private party.
> >> > I suppose the Court's recent decision with
> >> > respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
> >> > courts decided it was all right for state and local
> >> > governments to take property away from private
> >> > persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
> >> > other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
> >>
> >> Did you know that ignorance is curable? Why not avail yourself of
> >> the cure: knowledge? In the eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New
> >> London, 545US469 (2005), the Supreme Court said the federal
> >> government could not determine the extent of a state's eminent domain
> >> rules, but that it was up to the states' constitutions.
> >
> > LIke I said.
>
> Hardly. The Supreme Court didn't approve of states taking private
> property to give to individuals. It said that whether this was proper
> was up to the states under their own constitutions.
>
> Do you really not understand the difference? Look up "federalist
> system."
I understand that the Supreme Court said it was up to
the states. The constitution of a state is "up to" the
state as are its laws and its exercises of eminent
domain. Therefore, in the view of the Supreme Court,
it was "all right for state and local governments to
take property away from private persons ... to benefit
other private persons", as I said. I assumed that we
were talking about actions which were legal and
constitutional with respect to the state's constitution
and laws -- otherwise the issue would not have been
brought before the Supreme Court.
I am sure no one would disagree that the Constitution
empowers Congress to pass laws regulating interstate
commerce in medical insurance. What I'm curious about
is how _everyone_ can be compelled to buy the
insurance, which is quite a different question. Public
health issues are also a different subject.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-E3E21...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article
> <_uOdnfVwA49P753W...@giganews.com>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:anarcissie-51E8D...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
<snip/>
>> >> > As I
>> >> > understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
>> >> > insurance from private insurers. However, there
>> >> > does not seem to be any Constituional provision
>> >> > empowering the Federal government to compel
>> >> > one class of private citizens to give money to another.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think taxation is?
>> >
>> > Taxation is the transfer of money from private people
>> > to the government, not to other private individuals or
>> > groups. I am kind of surprised I have to spell that
>> > out, but then, this is Usenet.
>>
>> Let's not get all literal-minded here. Taxation transfers money
>> first to the government, which then transfers it to individuals. So
>> the result is the same.
>
> Yes, but the Constitution among other things is about
> correct procedure.
Actually, the Constitution isn't much about procedure at all. Procedures
are specified in the Constitution to
1. Make laws.
2. Elect and impeach the President.
3. Make oaths of office.
3. Ratify and amend the Constitution itself.
Most procedural questions are left up to Congress and the states. No
judicial procedures whatsoever are specified.
The Constitution is mainly about the laying out of powers and
restrictions on those powers.
> The Constitution says the
> government can tax, and that it can spend money, but as
> it's written it does not seem to authorize it to compel
> payments from one private party to another.
It doesn't specifically authorize an air force.
It doesn't specifically empower Congress to pass laws forbidding
discrimination in public accommodations.
It doesn't specifically say all that much. But it generally lays out the
areas of operation of the federal government.
>> >> > Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>> >> > Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
>> >> > that less-wealthy people give their money to
>> >> > more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
>> >> > controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
>> >> > Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
>> >> > seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
>> >> > speaking.
>> >>
>> >> Given the elasticity of the commerce clause, it's not even close.
>> >
>> >
>> > The interstate commerce clause? I don't see how one
>> > could reasonably apply that to people sitting at home
>> > doing nothing, for example.
>>
>> But these people aren't sitting at home doing nothing. They're out
>> and about and living their lives and taking the universal risks of
>> getting sick and injured. Their health care or failure to obtain it
>> affects the entire economy.
>
> We don't know what they're doing, actually. Some
> people engage in very, very little economic activity.
>
>> You might as well say that retired people sit at home and do nothing,
>> so paying them Social Security is unconstitutional. Already been
>> decided.
>
> No, Social Security is based on income or employment.
Or disability.
> It's quite different.
So what? Do you find anything specifically mentioned in the Constitution
about forcing people to pay taxes for retirement insurance?
> The medical insurance thing seems more like a head tax
which is perfectly legal
> --but it's not actually a
> tax. I'm sure it would be Constitutional for the
> government to tax people with incomes or jobs
> and appropriate the money to some sort of
> medical-insurance agency like Medicare, but this is
> different, because it's in effect a head tax and
> because the receiver of the payment is a private party.
So what?
No, the Supreme Court did not rule on what was legal with respect to the
states' constitutions. The Supreme Court does not decide whether a
state's action is in accord with the state's constitution. The Supreme
Court decides whether a state action is in accord with the national
Constitution. The Supreme Court declined to make a national rule and
left the legality of the states' actions to the states.
This may be a distinction without a difference for you.
<snip/>
>> > However, I am curious as to the particular
>> > gyrations and acrobatics which are likely to be
>> > performed in this particular case. There are some
>> > differences: in both cases given above, the people
>> > involved were engaged in some kind of commercial or
>> > at least potentially commercial activity which the
>> > government forbade. In the case of medical insurance,
>> > if what I read is correct, the law applies simply
>> > because a person is breathing -- they need not be
>> > engaged in any commercial activity whatever. So
>> > whatever gyration is constructed will have to go beyond
>> > those already established, will it not?
>>
>> Supposing this gets to the Supreme Court, the gov will have to
>> demonstrate 1) that the law is necessary and proper to carrying out
>> the gov's duties, and 2) that regulating health insurance is pursuant
>> to regulating interstate commerce. Given the height of the bar for
>> what constitutes interstate commerce, this should be a slam dunk.
>>
>> One word for ya: pandemic.
>
> I am sure no one would disagree that the Constitution
> empowers Congress to pass laws regulating interstate
> commerce in medical insurance.
Then we're done.
> What I'm curious about
> is how _everyone_ can be compelled to buy the
> insurance, which is quite a different question.
I think everyone will be required to have insurance. Some folks will be
unable to buy it.
> Public health issues are also a different subject.
Public health issues as they affect the economy are exactly what the gov
will rely on to show that their actions are necessary, proper, and within
the scope of the commerce clause.
Of course, the Supreme Court could prove me wrong.
*Anarcissie*
http://tinyurl.com/b6vdz3
Irrelevant here, but interesting.
Dänk 1010011010
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
> Administration's current medical insurance plan as
> it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
> understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
> insurance from private insurers. However, there
> does not seem to be any Constituional provision
> empowering the Federal government to compel
> one class of private citizens to give money to another.
Of course national health care is unconstitutional, but so is Social
Security, Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and countless other federal
programs.
The Republicans who once wiped their asses with the Constitution when
they were in power have suddenly discovered the importance of checks
and balances now that they are out of power, and are suddenly
concerned that universal health care may exceed the federal
government's chartered powers.
But Republicans opposition to national health care is purely
reactionary and not rooted in any particular ideological principle,
since the party has no consistent ideology except right-wing populism
and corruption.
The Republicans claim that not only is national health care an
unconstitutional exercise of federal power, but that forcing Americans
to purchase insurance is also unconstitutional. But Social Security
remains constitutional, and Republicans recently attempted to
privatize Social Security - where Americans would be required to
invest in private pension plans, preferably exotic mortgage securities
with high yields.
Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
purchase of private health insurance is not.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
> purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
> purchase of private health insurance is not.
I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
which surprised me. In Helvering v. Davis, which
established the constitutionality of Social Security,
the taxing part of the plan and the provision for
payout were carefully separated; the tax is
nominally for the "general welfare" and the payout
is just something Congress happens to be doing
with the Treasury's money, as it is empowered to
do in the Constitution. It is certainly not a
compelled payment to a private party, which
is what the present medical insurance proposal
looks like to me. Hence my question about it.
Dan Clore
> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
> in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
> medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does not
> seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
> another.
Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
convinced that this is unconstitutional.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Deadrat
news:7mn0fcF...@mid.individual.net:
> Anarcissie wrote:
>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
>> in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
>> medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does not
>> seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
>> another.
>
> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>
> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
> Glenn Beck,
There are drugs that can help.
> I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now convinced that
> this is unconstitutional.
From the self-promotion of your own sig (sorry, snipped here), I find
that you are the author of _The Unspeakable and Others_, for which one
on-line reviewer calls you "a master of the macabre prose poem[,]" while
another finds your misanthropy refreshing. (The latter unfortunately
goes on to compare you to the "darkest satirists of the past two
millennia," which to his lights includes Ambrose Bierce in the company of
Juvenal, Swift, and Schopenhauer.)
The second reviewer notes that "The idea that we are required to extend
benevolence to human beings merely because they are human beings is one
of the deepest and most irrational prejudices in human thought." Would
you agree? If so, I fear for the soundness of your opinions on the
Constitution, which after all, is based on the political philosophy that
rights accrue to humans as a result of their humanity and which is set up
to protect those rights.
What exactly do you find "weak" in the analysis of Constitutional
experts? In particular, which of their arguments do you dispute? Those
dismissing concerns based on the commerce clause? The necessary and
proper clause? The 5th Amendment? The 10th Amendment?
Experts might be wrong, and a Lovecraft imitator manque might be right.
Enlighten me. Be specific; show your work.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> > current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
> > in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
> > medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does not
> > seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
> > government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
> > another.
>
> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>
> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
> Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
Yes, that was a very weak article. Clearly, the commerce
clause cannot justify fining people who are not doing any
commerce without some kind of very elaborate rationale
which MM neglected to provide. It rather lowered my
opinion of Media Matters.
Deadrat
news:fa8af36b-0aeb-4bc2...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 20, 2:55�am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Anarcissie wrote:
>> > I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>> > current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus far
>> > in Congress. �As I understand it, people will be compelled to buy
>> > medical insurance from private insurers. �However, there does not
>> > seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>> > government to compel one class of private citizens to give money to
>> > another.
>>
>> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>>
>> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing with
>> Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am now
>> convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>
> Yes, that was a very weak article.
I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion if you had some evidence to go with
it.
> Clearly, the commerce
> clause cannot justify fining people who are not doing any
> commerce
Clearly? The only thing clear is that you have an unsupported opinion.
Read the relevant opinions, Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich, to
get an informed view of the scope of power the Supreme Court has allowed
the gov in the regulation of interstate commerce. The
interpretation of the commerce clause doesn't rely on merely examining
the effect of laws on individuals but their effect on interstate
commerce.
> without some kind of very elaborate rationale which MM neglected to
> provide.
And the rationale, which is indeed quite elaborate, is contained in the
Supreme Court cases I recommended to you.
> It rather lowered my opinion of Media Matters.
Mote. Beam. Your eye.
Dan Clore
Right. Claiming that granting the power to regulate interstate commerce
also grants the power to regulate anything and everything that could
conceivably have an effect on interstate commerce, however indirect,
doesn't pass the laugh test. The case of an individual growing marijuana
for personal medicinal use shows the argument at its most utter
absurdity, as in that case there is no commerce involved, nor any
interstate activity. Well, I guess that means that this individual did
not purchase marijuana from another state, and thereby affected
interstate commerce by not engaging in it. Or perhaps this will affect
inststate commerce by affecting the individuals other purchases --
tie-dye t-shirts, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Butthole Surfers CDs,
and the like, which involve items from other states.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2:55 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
>>>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus
>>>> far in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to
>>>> buy medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does
>>>> not seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
>>>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money
>>>> to another.
>>> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
>>>
>>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
>>>
>>> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing
>>> with Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am
>>> now convinced that this is unconstitutional.
>>
>> Yes, that was a very weak article. Clearly, the commerce clause
>> cannot justify fining people who are not doing any commerce without
>> some kind of very elaborate rationale which MM neglected to provide.
>> It rather lowered my opinion of Media Matters.
>
> Right. Claiming that granting the power to regulate interstate commerce
> also grants the power to regulate anything and everything that could
> conceivably have an effect on interstate commerce, however indirect,
> doesn't pass the laugh test.
This isn't my "claim," and there is no "laugh test" that matters to the
law. It's what the Supreme Court says. Now, you may disagree with
Court, but max nixt.
> The case of an individual growing marijuana
> for personal medicinal use shows the argument at its most utter
> absurdity, as in that case there is no commerce involved, nor any
> interstate activity. Well, I guess that means that this individual did
> not purchase marijuana from another state, and thereby affected
> interstate commerce by not engaging in it. Or perhaps this will affect
> inststate commerce by affecting the individuals other purchases --
> tie-dye t-shirts, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Butthole Surfers CDs,
> and the like, which involve items from other states.
I have no idea what this rant means. You claim that you were convinced
that the current health care bills are unconstitutional. If you meant
that you could demonstrate this under the current interpretation of the
commerce clause, then I'm willing to listen to your argument. If, on the
other hand, you merely meant that you disagree with the state of the law,
then please post instead to alt.who.gives.a.shit.
Anarcissie
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2:55 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> Anarcissie wrote:
> >>> I am curious about the Constitutionality of the Administration's
> >>> current medical insurance plan as it has been thrashed out thus
> >>> far in Congress. As I understand it, people will be compelled to
> >>> buy medical insurance from private insurers. However, there does
> >>> not seem to be any Constituional provision empowering the Federal
> >>> government to compel one class of private citizens to give money
> >>> to another.
> >> Media Matters tries to make a case for constitutionality here:
> >>
> >> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200003
> >>
> >> Even though this puts me in the unpleasant position of agreeing
> >> with Glenn Beck, I find the arguments put forward so weak that I am
> >> now convinced that this is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Yes, that was a very weak article. Clearly, the commerce clause
> > cannot justify fining people who are not doing any commerce without
> > some kind of very elaborate rationale which MM neglected to provide.
> > It rather lowered my opinion of Media Matters.
>
> Right. Claiming that granting the power to regulate interstate commerce
> also grants the power to regulate anything and everything that could
> conceivably have an effect on interstate commerce, however indirect,
> doesn't pass the laugh test.
I think, though, that that is pretty much what Deadrat
is saying, and as far as the Supreme Court goes he or
she may have a point. For example, among the cases
recommended to me was the one in which the Federal
government successfully claimed that it had a right to
limit the amount a wheat grown by a farmer even though
the farmer was feeding all of it to his chickens and
was therefore not engaging in interstate commerce with
it. The Federal government claimed that this meant he
would buy less wheat, thereby affecting interstate
commerce. This is absurd, but it's settled law. As
you notice below, _Gonzales_ is also absurd, but it,
too, is the law. In short, as far as the Supreme
Court is concerned, the Federal legislature can pass
any law about anything and make it stick. This nicely
resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
What I think this boils down to is a view that the
Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
Alberto Gonzales. This is probably what Media Matters
should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
any surprise to any of us.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-2FC52...@reader1.panix.com:
This is simply absurd and it's not even true of laws concerning
interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that gun possession in and
of itself does not affect interstate commerce and overturned a federal
law restricting carrying guns in school zones. When Congress tried to
federalize rape, the Supreme Court again intervened, ignoring
Congressional findings about the effect of violence on women traveling
between states.
> This nicely resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
Again, nonsense. The unitary executive is one that may act without
legislative authority and against judicial prohibitions.
> What I think this boils down to is a view that the
> Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
> Alberto Gonzales.
That the WPE treated the Constitution like toilet paper does not make it
a waste.
> This is probably what Media Matters
> should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
> any surprise to any of us.
What surprise is that? Your ignorance?
Anarcissie
<k_2dnVqCyJar3prW...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> indirect, doesn't pass the laugh test. ...
> >
> > I think, though, that that is pretty much what Deadrat
> > is saying, and as far as the Supreme Court goes he or
> > she may have a point. For example, among the cases
> > recommended to me was the one in which the Federal
> > government successfully claimed that it had a right to
> > limit the amount a wheat grown by a farmer even though
> > the farmer was feeding all of it to his chickens and
> > was therefore not engaging in interstate commerce with
> > it. The Federal government claimed that this meant he
> > would buy less wheat, thereby affecting interstate
> > commerce. This is absurd, but it's settled law. As
> > you notice below, _Gonzales_ is also absurd, but it,
> > too, is the law. In short, as far as the Supreme
> > Court is concerned, the Federal legislature can pass
> > any law about anything and make it stick.
>
> This is simply absurd and it's not even true of laws concerning
> interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that gun possession in and
> of itself does not affect interstate commerce and overturned a federal
> law restricting carrying guns in school zones. When Congress tried to
> federalize rape, the Supreme Court again intervened, ignoring
> Congressional findings about the effect of violence on women traveling
> between states.
You are right; a finer distinction has to be drawn
between one set of absurdities and another. Clearly,
_Wickard_v_Filburn_ and _Gonzales_v_Raich_ are patently
absurd, as are the assertions of Federal power right
above. Yet two passed muster, and two did not.
I confess no immediate taxonomy of the absurd occurs to
me which could sort out the difference. I was going to
say that the rejected laws looked "liberal", but then I
suppose _Wickard_ is also "liberal", so that's not the
difference. So what is the deciding principle? Where
is the line that separates one absurd use of the
commerce clause from another?
>
> > This nicely resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
>
> Again, nonsense. The unitary executive is one that may act without
> legislative authority and against judicial prohibitions.
I said it _resonates_.
> > What I think this boils down to is a view that the
> > Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
> > Alberto Gonzales.
>
> That the WPE treated the Constitution like toilet paper does not make it
> a waste.
>
> > This is probably what Media Matters
> > should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
> > any surprise to any of us.
>
> What surprise is that? Your ignorance?
My ignorance is never a surprise. I know only that I
know nothing, and I rely on people like you, Deadrat,
to set me straight. Now, it certainly appears that
the Constitution is not taken very seriously; it's a
piece of wastepaper, and 18th-century wastepaper at
that. Otherwise we would not see these absurd
extensions of the commerce clause, which really are
pretty ludicrous, I think you must admit. The
question now is how to differentiate between one
absurdity and another in time to determine whether Mr.
O's "health care" bill will be accepted or rejected by
the Court.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-C82F9...@reader1.panix.com:
I think one has to look to the political history of the times. In 1942,
the US was pulling out of the Depression and fighting a war on two
fronts. Both the Battle of Midway and the Battle of Stalingrad were
fought during that year, but it's only in hindsight that historians could
say that these were turning points. It was by no means obvious that the
Allies would win in either theater. Great deference was given to FDR,
who by that time had appointed 8 of the 9 Justices. Such a Court was
unlikely to undermine the economic policies of a wartime President. I
believe the decision was unanimous.
Gonzales v Raich was a 6-3 decision. Given the fault lines, who knows
who was smoking what.
US v Lopez (gun possession) and US v Morrison (Violence Against Women
Act) were 5-4 decisions along ideological lines. Guns mattered to the
majority, and a 1994 Clinton law aimed at a Democratic constituency
didn't.
>> > This nicely resonates John Yoo's view of the Unitary Executive.
>>
>> Again, nonsense. The unitary executive is one that may act without
>> legislative authority and against judicial prohibitions.
>
> I said it _resonates_.
>
>> > What I think this boils down to is a view that the
>> > Constitution is a piece of wastepaper, speaking of
>> > Alberto Gonzales.
>>
>> That the WPE treated the Constitution like toilet paper does not make
>> it a waste.
>>
>> > This is probably what Media Matters
>> > should have said. I don't suppose this should come as
>> > any surprise to any of us.
>>
>> What surprise is that? Your ignorance?
>
> My ignorance is never a surprise. I know only that I
> know nothing, and I rely on people like you, Deadrat,
> to set me straight.
You're in trouble now, Beav.
> Now, it certainly appears that
> the Constitution is not taken very seriously;
Now you're just funnin' me. The Constitutional mechanics of government
are taken seriously and operate exactly as they're written.
Constitutional protections are taken seriously and that's why the gov
can't use infrared detection devices on your home without a warrant.
> it's a
> piece of wastepaper, and 18th-century wastepaper at
> that. Otherwise we would not see these absurd
> extensions of the commerce clause, which really are
> pretty ludicrous, I think you must admit.
It's pointless to despair because an 18th-century document didn't foresee
economic pattern and practice in the 21st century.
> The
> question now is how to differentiate between one
> absurdity and another in time to determine whether Mr.
> O's "health care" bill will be accepted or rejected by
> the Court.
In the first place, it isn't Obama's "health care" bill; it's a
Congressional health insurance bill. Obama has kept his hands off and
his mouth mostly shut about it.
The Court will do what it wants, of course. And it may decide to throw
off any pretension of consistency, but health insurance regulation is
well within the current boundaries, which as I noted aren't quite absent.
Dan Clore
Exactly. I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of debate with Deadrat, who has
informed me that my opinions don't matter because the government is
forcing different views on us, and I cannot argue from any premises
other than that the Supreme Court's absurd claims are absolutely right
-- and provide protection for our Constitutional rights, to boot.
Personally, I find the "experts" as fallible as any other human being,
even Supreme Court justices:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4079.html
>> The case of an individual growing marijuana for personal medicinal
>> use shows the argument at its most utter absurdity, as in that case
>> there is no commerce involved, nor any interstate activity. Well, I
>> guess that means that this individual did not purchase marijuana
>> from another state, and thereby affected interstate commerce by not
>> engaging in it. Or perhaps this will affect inststate commerce by
>> affecting the individuals other purchases -- tie-dye t-shirts, Jimi
>> Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Butthole Surfers CDs, and the like, which
>> involve items from other states.
--
Deadrat
As always, Brave Sir Robin, it's up to you.
> who
> has informed me that my opinions don't matter because the government
> is forcing different views on us, and I cannot argue from any premises
> other than that the Supreme Court's absurd claims are absolutely right
Shall we cue the violins here to join in a swelling and heart-tugging
chorus?
Your opinions don't matter to me because they seem ill-informed and
unsupported by evidence. Why you would care or act upon what I think is
a complete mystery to me.
You won't find me arguing that Supreme Court decisions are "absolutely
right" (whatever that even means), but they are certianly the current
law.
> -- and provide protection for our Constitutional rights, to boot.
Which they do, and which examples I gave you were apparently
unconvincing.
>
> Personally, I find the "experts" as fallible as any other human being,
> even Supreme Court justices:
>
> http://www.nolanchart.com/article4079.html
While experts (or even "experts") may be fallible, they've got nothing on
you. This link is another piece of self-promotion on your part, a column
in which you say
<quote>
Scalia uses the phrases "alien enemies", "enemy aliens", "enemy
combatants", and "enemy prisoners", as if the guilt of those held
prisoner had been established.
</quote>
This refers to Scalia's dissent in Boumediene v Bush. Now, I think
Scalia misses the point, and I agree with the majority in this case, but
it's an example of how a little expertise would inform your opinions.
Scalia is saying that the prisoners are essentially prisoners of war, and
by treaty the making of war by combatants cannot be criminalized. POWs
may be held captive but under humane conditions for the duration of
hostilities. There is no guilt to establish, because there is no crime.
<snip/>
Charles Bell
> On Nov 16, 9:38 pm, Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
> > purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
> > purchase of private health insurance is not.
>
> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one. Even Sen. Snowe somewhere in her
objection to the public opition made the claim of
unconstitutionality. It can be generally taken for granted the
Republicans think of socialized healthcare as unconstitutional, as
they have historically always made that claim, just as it can be taken
for granted that passing unconstitutional legislation is not something
which Congress cares about.
> which surprised me. In Helvering v. Davis, which
> established the constitutionality of Social Security,
> the taxing part of the plan and the provision for
> payout were carefully separated; the tax is
> nominally for the "general welfare" and the payout
> is just something Congress happens to be doing
> with the Treasury's money, as it is empowered to
> do in the Constitution.
It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of the
concept of enumerated powers, Why go on in Article I section 8 beyond
the first paragraph if Congress is to do anything by way of tax for
welfare? Congress can claim to do *anything* using "general welfare"
as an excuse, so why do we have enumerated federal powers and the 9th
and 10th amendments?
Deadrat
a308-592...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 16, 11:21�pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 9:38�pm, D�nk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ...
>> > Using doublethink, Republicans are able to believe that the forced
>> > purchase of private pension plans is constitutional, but the forced
>> > purchase of private health insurance is not.
>>
>> I haven't seen a Republican claim about the
>> constitutionality of the medical care plan(s),
>
> Michelle Bachman, R.-MN for one.
Pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?
> Even Sen. Snowe somewhere in her
> objection to the public opition made the claim of
> unconstitutionality.
May we have a cite?
<snip/>
> It is empowered by the Constitution if one wants to make hash of the
> concept of enumerated powers,
The Constitution doesn't enumerate actions that Congress may or may not
take. It's language is general and every generation wrestles with its
meaning.
> Why go on in Article I section 8 beyond
> the first paragraph if Congress is to do anything by way of tax for
> welfare? Congress can claim to do *anything* using "general welfare"
> as an excuse, so why do we have enumerated federal powers and the 9th
> and 10th amendments?
I doubt that you believe that Congress may do "*anything*" under the
rubric of general welfare. So why make the argument?
The 9th and 10th don't add much to the Constitution. They make explicit
what the founders understood about a federal system. The 9th basically
disallows the feds from dismissing a claim of rights by merely saying
that the right isn't explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Joseph K.
wrote:
>I am curious about the Constitutionality of the
>Administration's current medical insurance plan as
>it has been thrashed out thus far in Congress. As I
>understand it, people will be compelled to buy medical
>insurance from private insurers. However, there
>does not seem to be any Constituional provision
>empowering the Federal government to compel
>one class of private citizens to give money to another.
What about the right to private property? By forcing people to buy
medical insurance the government is expropriating part of a worker's
salary to pass it on to a private insurance company. Most likely the
system will actually work like that: the owner of that money, the
worker, will never see the money, it will be passed directly on to the
private insurer. It has been like that in another country that I know
of for many years.
>Of course, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme
>Court says it is, and since the present plan mandates
>that less-wealthy people give their money to
>more-wealthy people, or rather corporations owned and
>controlled by them, I have no doubt that the present
>Court will find the plan to be all right, but it still
>seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally
>speaking. I suppose the Court's recent decision with
>respect to eminent domain is analogous -- there, the
>courts decided it was all right for state and local
>governments to take property away from private
>persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit
>other private persons, to wit, real estate developers.
>The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except
>for good old keeping and bearing arms, and pretty
>strong on favoring the well-off and powerful. However,
>I expect some sort of legal argument to be
>constructed, however jury-rigged, and I'd like to
>know if there are any sketches of it making the
>rounds yet.
Well, in another country that I know of, where a worker's money is
expropriated to pass it on to private medical insurers or pension
funds, no lawyer has ever raised the issue of unconstitutionality of
expropriation.
I call this system reverse-socialism, since the worker is expropriated
to give money to the rich.
Joseph K.
wrote:
That the Constitution is a wastepaper is not surprising at all, as you
remarked, but in the case of the Medical Insurance Plan, as you and I
have understood it, it is surprising that not many have noted the
possible unconstitutionality of the violation of the right to private
property, in a country so concerced about the sanctity of private
property as the USA.
Deadrat
news:hiojg5pe01n3uf397...@4ax.com:
<snip/>
> That the Constitution is a wastepaper is not surprising at all, as you
> remarked, but in the case of the Medical Insurance Plan, as you and I
> have understood it, it is surprising that not many have noted the
> possible unconstitutionality of the violation of the right to private
> property, in a country so concerced about the sanctity of private
> property as the USA.
Another ignoramus chimes in.
I realize that this is cross-posted to groups not concerned with legal
issues, but read the controlling case, Wickard v Filburn, for a dismissal
of the claim that the exercise of the commerce clause constitutes a taking
under the 5th Amendment (which is what I take is meant by "violation of the
right to private property."
Dan Clore
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
>
> More fun:
>
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11003
>
From the article linked to:
<quote>
But members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution � not the
court's funhouse-mirror version of it.
</quote>
In fact, upholding the Constitution requires adhering to the Suprmee
Court's interpretation of the law. That's how the system works. If
Congress doesn't like how the Court rules, then it may
1. Change the law, if it's a statutory matter.
2. If it's not a statuory issue, start the process of changing the
Constitution, by passing an amendment.
3. Expand the Court.
4. Impeach the Justices.
Ignoring the Court is not an option within the system.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:01:34 -0500, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com>
The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes Congress to
impose taxes of some kinds, for example per capita
and according to income (16th Amendment). So
Congress can expropriate that sort of property and can
spend it as it pleases (the general welfare and the
common defense can be stretched pretty easily to
whatever one wants). What I thought was unusual was
imposing a forced payment from one private party to
another.
Joseph K.
Yes, and that is what I am remarking. I understand that the medical
insurance plan of the government will expropriate income of the
workers to pass is directly to a private medical insurance company.
That is different from the expropriation of a individual worker's
income for the general use of the gov't.
*Anarcissie*
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:32:54 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
> >The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes Congress to
> >impose taxes of some kinds, for example per capita
> >and according to income (16th Amendment). So
> >Congress can expropriate that sort of property and can
> >spend it as it pleases (the general welfare and the
> >common defense can be stretched pretty easily to
> >whatever one wants). What I thought was unusual was
> >imposing a forced payment from one private party to
> >another.
>
> Yes, and that is what I am remarking. I understand that the medical
> insurance plan of the government will expropriate income of the
> workers to pass is directly to a private medical insurance company.
> That is different from the expropriation of a individual worker's
> income for the general use of the gov't.
Well, according to Deadrat, the Supreme Court will
have no trouble extending something, probably the
interstate commerce clause, to cover this -- if they
feel like it. I am now waiting for the calculus that
will enable even us ignoramuses to predict what
they will do. But a rational mapping of the bill into
Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
demonstrates.
Deadrat
99c3-dc6...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 9:03�pm, Joseph K. <ni...@none.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:32:54 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
>> >The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes Congress to
>> >impose taxes of some kinds, for example per capita
>> >and according to income (16th Amendment). �So
>> >Congress can expropriate that sort of property and can
>> >spend it as it pleases (the general welfare and the
>> >common defense can be stretched pretty easily to
>> >whatever one wants). �What I thought was unusual was
>> >imposing a forced payment from one private party to
>> >another.
>>
>> Yes, and that is what I am remarking. I understand that the medical
>> insurance plan of the government will expropriate income of the
>> workers to pass is directly to a private medical insurance company.
>> That is different from the expropriation of a individual worker's
>> income for the general use of the gov't.
>
> Well, according to Deadrat, the Supreme Court will
> have no trouble extending something, probably the
> interstate commerce clause, to cover this -- if they
> feel like it.
If the Supreme Court upholds the law, it won't have to extend anything,
as the law fits neatly into precedent.
> I am now waiting for the calculus that
> will enable even us ignoramuses to predict what
> they will do.
Done.
See Message-ID: <teadnX7dlPopFJHW...@giganews.com>
misc.legal: 668942.
Let me know what's still confusing you.
> But a rational mapping of the bill into
> Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
> demonstrates.
Already decided to ignore reason, eh?
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ac4c010d-ed4c-460c-
> 99c3-dc67616b8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> misc.legal: 668942.
>
> Let me know what's still confusing you.
Google can't find it. If you give the subject line and the
date, I might have better luck. The article number you give
is probably specific to giganews, which I don't use.
> > But a rational mapping of the bill into
> > Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
> > demonstrates.
>
> Already decided to ignore reason, eh?
Well, in regard to _Gonzales_, I'd say I'm paying
attention to the lack of it, especially in light of the
other cases you mention which do limit the interstate
commerce power. But I want to examine your
formula, which may resolve the apparent
contradiction. Or not.
Deadrat
news:d58ff998-09e6-4cb6...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
Not to worry. With a few edits, I'll repost here:
<repost>
> Well, go ahead and give us the rationale. How can we analyze a bill
> which rests on the interstate commerce power so that we can determine
> whether the Supreme Court will find it constitutional?
The standard is set, or at least reiterated, by US v Lopez. The
activity in question must use the "channels" or "instrumentalities" of
interstate commerce, or substantially affect interstate commerce. Under
Wickard v Filburn, the measure of substantiality is not the magnitude of
the individual's action, but that of the aggregate effect were the
action in question be available to everyone. Wickard allows the
regulation of local, noncommercial activity as long as that activity
affects interstate commerce. US v Morrison requires the activity to be
not only substantial but direct. It seems to me that this raises the
bar for the regulation of noncommercial activities.
Thus standing around with a loaded gun in your pants doesn't qualify,
and neither does beating up your girlfriend. But presumably, shooting
truckers or pimping in the so-called white slave trade, would.
Is this really a point of contention for health insurance? A commercial
activity is the production or consumption of some good or the provision
or engagement of some service. Are you really arguing that underwriting
and buying health insurance isn't a commercial activity? The bills in
question seek to restructure an entire business sector, from a
monopolistic and discretionary operation to one that is competitive and
universal. Do you find this doesn't fall under the umbrella of
interstate commerce? The restructure doesn't work without mandatory
participation. If everyone were allowed to refuse insurance, in other
words to make Filburn's claim of immunity from regulation, then
insurance companies would find themselves insuring mostly the sick,
making their business untenable. Isn't this a clear example of an
activity that directly and substantially affects the commerce of health
insurance?
> We ignoramuses would like to know.
I realize that (you think) you're being ironic, but in my experience
ignoramuses almost never want to know.
>> > but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
>> > common sense. �An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
>>
>> Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court
>> decisions, but
>> just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does
>> not make them irrational.
>
> Of course it doesn't. However, if they are rational, the rational
> structure can be revealed by those in the know, like yourself.
It's not so much that I'm "in the know." After all, I'm not a lawyer.
But I have taken the time to read and read about the cases that define
the powers of Congress with regard to interstate commerce. You haven't.
But tell me, what don't you understand of what I posted above?
It's certainly possible to dispute the rationale of the decisions.
After all, Gonzales v Raich was 5-4. These things are not amenable to
mathematical proof or experimental verification. They are part of a
messy, social, human system. It's certainly possible to dispute the
wisdom of the decisions. Disastrous consequences may flow from them.
But these are different issues. To deny any "rational structure" to the
law as it stands is ignorance.
</repost>
>> > But a rational mapping of the bill into
>> > Constitution space isn't it, as _Gonzales_v_Raich_
>> > demonstrates.
>>
>> Already decided to ignore reason, eh?
>
> Well, in regard to _Gonzales_, I'd say I'm paying attention to the
> lack of it, especially in light of the other cases you mention which
> do limit the interstate commerce power. But I want to examine your
> formula, which may resolve the apparent contradiction. Or not.
I know you probably didn't expect a quiz, but now that you (presumably)
understand things, see how you do:
1. A home owner has a dispute with a seller. The contract contains a
mandatory arbitration clause. The buyer sues, the seller files a motion to
compel arbitration, which the buyer opposes citing California rules of
civil procedure, which do not preclude the buyer's suit. The seller cites
the Federal Arbitration Act, which would trump California rules if the
commerce clause is properly invoked. Trial court rules for the buyer;
seller appeals, citing 5 major areas of the home using out of state
suppliers. Did the Appeals Court affirm or reverse?
2. The plaintiffs leased a car to a customer who got into an accident with
the defendant. The defendant sued the plaintiff for personal injury under a
Florida law using a "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine. The plaintiffs
claimed they were immune from suit under a federal statute providing
immunity to car rental businesses. The defendant said the federal law was
unconstitutional overreach of the commerce clause into tort liability. Did
the federal court agree? (Hint: consider whether the legal issue concerns
an instrumentality of commerce, namely the car.)
3. A man was convicted of owning body armor under a federal law prohibiting
felons from owning such items "sold or offered for sale in interstate
commerce." He appealed. Did the Appeals Court affirm or reverse?
Anarcissie
<4oadndHo7NWZtJPW...@giganews.com>,
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > On Nov 24, 10:09�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in
It seems to me that _US_v_Morrison_ and _US_v_Lopez_
both contradict _Filburn_ in that _Filburn_ fails the
directness requirement they propose, as, of course,
does _Gonzales_v_Raich_. All four decisions look
political, rather than logical, to me, that is, they
are based on shifting and often contradictory
political forces. I can expand on that view but it
is probably easy enough to guess what my arguments
would be. As long as we have a contradiction in our
premises (the Constitution and previous decisions
interpreting it) we can come up with a great variety
of contradictory answers.
In the case of regulating medical insurance, I think
one could reasonably argue that medical insurance
is a big business with clear, direct implications for
interstate commerce. However, what I think exceeds
any power granted in the Constitution to the Federal
government is a law forcing all persons to buy
medical insurance regardless of whether they are
engaged in any sort of commerce whatever. Mr. Filburn
at least had the option of not growing wheat, or not
feeding it to his chickens. Congress could, of
course, directly tax the people _per_capita_ or by
income and thereby raise the money to pay for their
medical insurance or medical care on the basis of
pursuing the general welfare and common defense, but I
don't see anything in the Constitution whereby the
Federal government is empowered to compel one set of
private persons, regardless of their economic or other
activity, to do business with another. Even surreal
_Wickard_v_Filburn_ does not make that claim.
> > We ignoramuses would like to know.
>
> I realize that (you think) you're being ironic, but in my experience
> ignoramuses almost never want to know.
I assure you that I'm genuinely ignorant about the
arcana of Constitutional law. However, it generally
seems to make some kind of sense, and the
constitutional questions about the present "health
care" bill piqued my interest because I figured some
kind of really elaborate twisting would be necessary
to kosher the pig in this case.
> >> > but it is plain that it does give much weight to plain reason or
> >> > common sense. �An assessment of political forces seems more likely.
> >>
> >> Political forces have always played a part in Supreme Court
> >> decisions, but
> >> just because you don't understand or agree with their decisions does
> >> not make them irrational.
> >
> > Of course it doesn't. However, if they are rational, the rational
> > structure can be revealed by those in the know, like yourself.
>
> It's not so much that I'm "in the know." After all, I'm not a lawyer.
> But I have taken the time to read and read about the cases that define
> the powers of Congress with regard to interstate commerce. You haven't.
> But tell me, what don't you understand of what I posted above?
>
> It's certainly possible to dispute the rationale of the decisions.
> After all, Gonzales v Raich was 5-4. These things are not amenable to
> mathematical proof or experimental verification. They are part of a
> messy, social, human system. It's certainly possible to dispute the
> wisdom of the decisions. Disastrous consequences may flow from them.
>
> But these are different issues. To deny any "rational structure" to the
> law as it stands is ignorance.
Actually, _Gonzales_v_Raich_ was 6-3, at least
according to Wikipedia. Scalia wrote a separate
concurrence which to me appears even more tortured
than the majority opinion.
When I say "rational" I do not mean that the justices
are behaving irrationally with regard to life choices
or their jobs in general. The may be, or not. I mean
there is no way of starting with the Constitution and
subsequent decisions and logically producing an answer
as to the constitutionality of a proposed law, like the
"health care bill" we're discussing. _Gonzales_ shows
that the territory of interstate commerce has no
necessary limit, but _Morrison_ and _Lopez_ show
that the S.C. may impose one if they feel like it.
Deadrat
news:anarcissie-6D65A...@reader1.panix.com:
Filburn does not fail the directness requriement as Filburn deals with
commerce, goods or services. The "goods" for Filburn was wheat.
> as, of course, does _Gonzales_v_Raich_.
Same for Gonzales v Raich. The goods is marijuana.
> All four decisions look political, rather than logical, to me, that
> is, they are based on shifting and often contradictory
> political forces. I can expand on that view but it
> is probably easy enough to guess what my arguments
> would be.
I can't tell what your arguments are. I doubt that they're based on any
examination of commerce-clause jurisprudence, though.
> As long as we have a contradiction in our
> premises (the Constitution and previous decisions
> interpreting it) we can come up with a great variety
> of contradictory answers.
>
> In the case of regulating medical insurance, I think
> one could reasonably argue that medical insurance
> is a big business with clear, direct implications for
> interstate commerce. However, what I think exceeds
> any power granted in the Constitution to the Federal
> government is a law forcing all persons to buy
> medical insurance regardless of whether they are
> engaged in any sort of commerce whatever.
I know what you think. What you haven't told me is why you think that
based on case law.
> Mr. Filburn
> at least had the option of not growing wheat, or not
> feeding it to his chickens. Congress could, of
> course, directly tax the people _per_capita_ or by
> income and thereby raise the money to pay for their
> medical insurance or medical care on the basis of
> pursuing the general welfare and common defense, but I
> don't see anything in the Constitution whereby the
> Federal government is empowered to compel one set of
> private persons, regardless of their economic or other
> activity, to do business with another.
This is one of your basic misconceptions, one that I can't seem to
disabuse you of. You're looking for a list of exhaustive, enumerated
*actions* in the Constitution that Congress may take. When you don't
find ordering people to buy health insurance in the list, then you
conclude it's unconstitutional. But there's no such list. What there is
a list of general *powers*, and whether a particular action is
Constitutional depends on whether that action falls under one of the
powers, according to case law.
Does mandating health insurance affect interstate commerce in a direct
way? I'd have to say yes, since insurance is a commercial service. Does
allowing individuals the option of not having coverage have a substantial
affect *in the aggregate* Again, I'd have to say yes, since the current
schemes rely on universal coverage to change the business model.
> Even surreal _Wickard_v_Filburn_ does not make that claim.
Wickard v Filburn is not surreal. You may not like the result, but
that's different. Ask the two questions about wheat production that I
asked about health insurance.
I stand corrected.
>
> When I say "rational" I do not mean that the justices
> are behaving irrationally with regard to life choices
> or their jobs in general. The may be, or not. I mean
> there is no way of starting with the Constitution and
> subsequent decisions and logically producing an answer
> as to the constitutionality of a proposed law, like the
> "health care bill" we're discussing. _Gonzales_ shows
> that the territory of interstate commerce has no
> necessary limit, but _Morrison_ and _Lopez_ show
> that the S.C. may impose one if they feel like it.
I'm kinda stuck here. I've tried to explain the reasoning that goes into
interstate commerce cases. You neither ask questions about nor make any
challenges to the explanation. You simply keep reiterating your opinion
that the whole thing is inexplicable beyond the personal feelings of
judges and justices.
Case in point. I've given you three examples from actual court cases.
Even if you believe the results make for bad social policy, you should be
able to take my explanation (or one of your choosing from your own
research) and apply the reasoning given to figure out what the rulings
were. But you didn't try.
Do you understand why I say that in my experience ignoramuses really
don't want to know?