an interesting take...

[Superfreak]

Probably the wrong question to ask on a political board but am I the only one who watched the NBA draft and no cable news?

No, I did the same... had to see where the Marquette guys would go. Jae Crowder to Dallas, DJO to the Lakers.

[Yurt]

I like Dixie's knee-jerk version better than the "considered" version. Obama won. Deal with it. This silver lining searching is cute, but let's not pretend the decision did things that it didn't do.

The opinion doesn't take squat away from anyone. The commerce clause stands on the same footing it stood on before this decision. All that was clarified is that Congress can't force you to buy something, which isn't really a big deal since this was, like, the third time Congress has done that in 200+ years. And the state funding stuff is somewhat surprising, but I'm willing to bet that its application is quite limited on a going forward basis.

Oh, and the whole thing about the mandate being repealed by reconciliation -- this decision doesn't change anything about that.

iirc....you argued against me on the CC and you argued it would be upheld under the CC. this decision IS a big deal for CC and it doesn't stand on the same footing as before.

[Dungheap]

sure. i'm all pissed out.
Can't agree though, this is the first time EVER the Commerce Clause power was not allowed to expand.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz1zBqdLWnw
The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress' power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Chief Justice Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:

"The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. ... The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. ... Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and -- under the government's theory -- empower Congress to make those decisions for him."

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power -- the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration's Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: "Under our written Constitution ... the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace."(more)

But it isn't. Morrison and Lopez both limited the scope of the Commerce Clause in the 90s.

[Dungheap]

iirc....you argued against me on the CC and you argued it would be upheld under the CC. this decision IS a big deal for CC and it doesn't stand on the same footing as before.

In practical terms, it isn't really a big deal at all. After this decision, Congress can't force you to buy stuff. The mandate is the first time in about 200 years that Congress has tried that so I don't really see the issue coming up again any time soon.

[annata]

imo...it grants the government nearly unlimited power. justifying the law and in fact rewriting the law to call it a tax and using the tax power to uphold it, grants the government more power than had they used the CC to uphold it. a few months ago i made arguments on why i thought the law would be struck down under the CC clause and roberts wrote virtually the same thing i argued. the tax power, as used here, is virtually, if not completely, unlimited.

the government can now demand you purchase anything, but "allow" you to not purchase it, if you pay a tax.

Ya but . who's gonna support new taxes?
Not many, this one had to be back doored in , because the Dems PURPOSELY avoided using enumerated powers to tax.

The Commerce Clause was a sneaky way to expand Fed'l power - unless one was familiar with it's history ( federalism), i doubt most Americans even KNEW how it's changed federalism ( Marblecake/Dual/Co-operative/ and the infamous "new federalism") which consistently blurred the lines of co-sovereignity.

So no more sneaky expansionism - that's a win/win for ALL. If the Fed's wanna expand, they can no longer rely on a passive Court to do so.
Now they have to declare a tax -at least on thecommercial aspectof the Commerce Clause. It's usage is stil pernicious, but it finally got "clipped"

[annata]

But it isn't. Morrison and Lopez both limited the scope of the Commerce Clause in the 90s.

true. but they were narrow rulings, and United States v. Morrison also relied on the Equal protection Act.
I was speaking more generally as reaching into state law, in particular Gonzalez v. Raich

[Yurt]

In practical terms, it isn't really a big deal at all. After this decision, Congress can't force you to buy stuff. The mandate is the first time in about 200 years that Congress has tried that so I don't really see the issue coming up again any time soon.

did you argue against my point and that it would pass under CC? and it is a big deal, it absolutely LIMITED the CC.

[Dungheap]

The most that can credibly be said about the Commerce Clause aspect is that the Supreme Court did not expand Congress's recognized powers under the Commerce Clause.

[Dungheap]

did you argue against my point and that it would pass under CC? and it is a big deal, it absolutely LIMITED the CC.

Yes, I did. I agree that it limited Commerce Clause powers. But I don't think those limitations matter at all from a practical perspective because what Congress is prohibited from doing it hardly ever tries to do in the first instance.

[Jarod]

I am very glad they were able to put a limit on the CC while still upholding the HC law.

[Yurt]

Yes, I did. I don't agree that it limited Commerce Clause powers. But I don't think those limitations matter at all from a practical perspective because what Congress is prohibited from doing it hardly ever tries to do in the first instance.

wait a minute...you and many others believed the CC granted congress the power to enforce the IM. before this decision, congress arguably had the power and in fact created the law using that power. now...the decision absolutely limits that power by stating we cannot be forced into the marketplace.

[annata]

The most that can credibly be said about the Commerce Clause aspect is that the Supreme Court did not expand Congress's recognized powers under the Commerce Clause.

But that's huge, and this SCOTUS is hostile to expansion.
You know how this ebbs and flows, and while nothing in the future is unforseen, it sets precedent for limitation.

[Dungheap]

wait a minute...you and many others believed the CC granted congress the power to enforce the IM. before this decision, congress arguably had the power and in fact created the law using that power. now...the decision absolutely limits that power by stating we cannot be forced into the marketplace.

Yeah, I left a don't in there that should have been cut. I edited my post. Let me know if that doesn't clear it up for you.

[Yurt]

I am very glad they were able to put a limit on the CC while still upholding the HC law.

big deal. it may have put a limit on the CC, however, it gives congress carte blanche power under their taxing and spending powers. semantics really.

[Yurt]

Yeah, I left a don't in there that should have been cut. I edited my post. Let me know if that doesn't clear it up for you.

thanks. it did.