| Kasz216 said:
|
...I'm just going to assume you've forgotten why we got on that tangent in the first place, and let it rest.
| Kasz216 said: B) You seem to be missing the point entirely. Which you keep doing. Rights have only very specific ways in which they can be infringed on. Which involve direct and specific harm to someone. This is based on the arguement you presented that healthcare should be considered a right. |
1) No, rights can be, and are, infringed without involving "direct and specific harm to someone," and more importantly
2) I said health care is an inevitability, not a right.
| Kasz216 said:
C) Except... there have been exact cases on this, where that has exactly been the ruling. I'd look it up, but when I google search it, i just keep getting bombed by the healthcare debate. |
And I don't believe you. At best, such language would be mere dicta. But again, consider it dropped.
| Kasz216 said: D) Yet you support and are argueing something that's farther along then that? Afterall Wickard said he had to destroy his crops because his making a product caused a problem with wheat commerce. Versus this, which is argueing that someone is effecting interestate commerce by NOT DOING ANYTHING and therefore MUST buy wheat. It's analogus to telling Wickard that he HAS to buy wheat for farm consumption. |
Support? Not necessarily. Arguing? Yes. This thread is not "what do you think the legal outcome should be?" It's "here's some resources for how the Court may rule." There's routinely a difference in how I think the courts should rule, and how they do.
Look, this is a constitutional law question regarding the federal government. There is a simple, three-part test for such questions. In a nutshell:
1) Is there federal action? If "no," STOP: the federal government is an improper party to the action. If "yes," proceed to step two.
2) Is the federal action permitted by the Constitution? If "no," STOP: the federal government is one of enumerated powers. It can not act without the Constitution's permission, and so the action is unconstitutional. If "yes," proceed to step three.
3) Is the federal action prohibited by the Constitution, treaty, or federal statute? If "no," STOP: the action is legal. If "yes," STOP: the action is illegal. Keep in mind though that if the bar is a treaty or federal statute, the Congress can elect to overrule those bars and proceed anyways: only the federal Constitution is an absolute bar.
All the talk about rights, free speech analysis, slippery slope lateral equivalents, etc., none of these belong in this discussion. All you need to do is go through the steps above. The main snag here is clearly step two. The relevant legal facts are as follows:
Health care and health care insurance both clearly under the domain of the commerce clause, and can be regulated at the point it is utilized. Health care is used by every American, often even before birth. People without health insurance, in the aggregate, have an impact on interstate commerce by utilizing health care on someone else's dime. On the other hand, this law attempts to regulate action that has not yet occured, and it seeks to compel behavior rather than merely regulate it. Are these last two factors enough to find that the commerce clause does not apply?
I'm inclined to think yes, albeit by a narrow margin, because of the reality that use is inevitable, and the impact on interstate commerce is very real. This wouldn't even be the first time the federal government compelled citizens to action: every adult male citizen must register for the draft, and the penalty for violation there (loss of liberty) is weighed higher than the penalty here (loss of income). Does this have uncomfortable legal ramifications? Yes. But the legal analysis is unrestricted by my mere discomfort.
Of course, judging from some of the questions asked yesterday, the discomfort may ultimately be the deciding factor.
