Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
No, because if there were a clear reason why this was unconstitutional, then... there would be a clear reason it was unconstitutional. The only thing i'm seeing in this whole process is politics, with right-wing states making up some legal arguments and pitching it at the courts. It isn't clear, and because it isn't clear and it's a good thing to have, it should go through. When in doubt, go with what's right.
|
Except... it is clear.
like you said. The 10th ammendment.
The ability to force people to do something for the good of everyone is called "Police Power"
which has been ruled a power of the state many times in Supreme Court Precdence.
In another case of "Good idea but unconsitutional"
See United States V Morrison.
Where very specifically, "Police Power" was refused on the basis that sexually assaulted women would need healthcare was not sufficent to invoke the commerce clause due to sexual assault not being an economic act.
Not buying health insurance is NOT a direct economic act.
Congress can not, by precedent, regulate things that are not direct economic actions.
Also United States vs Lopez
The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
and that's all they can regulate.
So there you go... precedence of it being unconstituional.
|
So it then comes down to: is a failure to act the same thing as an act? It's clear that the failure to purchase health insurance, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce (what is it, 50 million uninsured? Has to amount for something).
Hell, if anything, the slippery slope here would be that overturning ACA could open the door to wiping out all sorts of negligence laws because hey "the government can't punish me for not doing stuff."
|
I hope this is one of those cases where your so angry you can't form a coherent arguement.
A) You fell back on to "These people not doing something effects comerce in aggregate" which is EXACTLY what the court said would allow for any commerce to be forced if made legal.
B) Negligence laws apply to actions. And for not doing a regulation that is part of that action.
For example, if you are working as a pilot and violet a federal negligence law by not checking a gauge... that is because you were a pilot.
If you were a passanger or just some guy on the street you don't get charged.
There is no federal negilgence law tied to no action whatsoever.
|
You're a citizen who's liable at some point to draw upon a medical expense that you can't afford out-of-pocket. You said before that health care isn't an inevitability, but it is, if only end-of-life care or something.
A refusal to do your civic duty is an action.
|
What if tommorrow it gets ruled unconstituional, someone is taken off their parents life insurance. they have a heart attack in their room, and die. Not to be discovered until hours later.
There would be no medical bills.
What if you specifically decide to not go to a hosptial your whole life, like a Christian Scientist.
What if before "end of life care" you die in your sleep.
Or you move to a different country.
Or the Police find you murdered.
Or you go to jail. (State pays for that afterall.)
Or you fly to a different country for your healthcare. (Though everybody seems to come here for that.)
Or since your qualfier is "can't afford out of pocket" what if your bill gates. Should he be exempt from this law? Should only the poor be forced to get health insurance?
Your grasping at straws here. Just admit that you want it to be ruled consitutional and would rather something be ruled constituional then isn't, that see something happen that you think would be a big negative for the country. I mean, that's a position I can respect.
Right now your just running on cognitive dissonance.
