Scalia sets pecedent for insurance mandate

T

Timshel

New member
Scalia sets precedent for insurance mandate

The right wing's inconsistencies on limited government do nothing but create precedent for more and more and government regulation in the market.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/29/reform-backers-cite-court-ruling/

WASHINGTON – Defenders of the newly enacted national health care law and its rule that all Americans get health insurance have a powerful and recent Supreme Court precedent on their side, a 2005 ruling that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case, like the coming challenge to the health care mandate, was the reach of the federal government’s power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought or sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients. They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority “to regulate commerce.” Even “non-economic local activity” can come under federal regulation if it is “a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce,” Scalia wrote.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
The right wing's inconsistencies on limited government do nothing but create precedent for more and more and government regulation in the market.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/29/reform-backers-cite-court-ruling/

WASHINGTON – Defenders of the newly enacted national health care law and its rule that all Americans get health insurance have a powerful and recent Supreme Court precedent on their side, a 2005 ruling that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case, like the coming challenge to the health care mandate, was the reach of the federal government’s power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought or sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients. They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority “to regulate commerce.” Even “non-economic local activity” can come under federal regulation if it is “a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce,” Scalia wrote.
Click to expand...

Regulating commerce is a far cry from mandating they purchase a commodity.
 
Gonzalez v. Raich. If ever there was a court decision that layed bare Scalias hypocrisy about his so called 'strict constructionist' claim, that was it.

First, Scalias opinion in that case has him using the necessary and proper clause, due mainly to his belief that the government has a duty to protect the public from a serious and dangerous gateway drug. A complete and utter bullshit stance, btw.

Second, This is in no way, shape, or form a 'precedent', in that Raich prohibits possession, it does not mandate possession.

I'd be really surprised if Scalia doesn't vote against this bill when the case comes before them, however, if the USSC actually does decide that the federal government can indeed make a law mandating a citizen purchase a market product, our country is done. finished.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Gonzalez v. Raich. If ever there was a court decision that layed bare Scalias hypocrisy about his so called 'strict constructionist' claim, that was it.

First, Scalias opinion in that case has him using the necessary and proper clause, due mainly to his belief that the government has a duty to protect the public from a serious and dangerous gateway drug. A complete and utter bullshit stance, btw.

Second, This is in no way, shape, or form a 'precedent', in that Raich prohibits possession, it does not mandate possession.

I'd be really surprised if Scalia doesn't vote against this bill when the case comes before them, however, if the USSC actually does decide that the federal government can indeed make a law mandating a citizen purchase a market product, our country is done. finished.
Click to expand...

Scalia's reasoning in the case sets the precedent. He argued that the Feds had unlimited rights to regulate any activity if it was "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce."
 
i'm not sure i would stretch the ruling that far...btw, what is the case name? i have a strong suspicion it is more about aggragate effect on interstate commerce....i can't remember the case name, but this was established in a wheat or corn case about 70 years ago
 
RStringfield said:
Scalia's reasoning in the case sets the precedent. He argued that the Feds had unlimited rights to regulate any activity if it was "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce."
Click to expand...

Scalias reasoning does not overturn Lochner v new york though. an important right of all americans to contract, or not to as they decide.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Lochner was essentially overturned a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...

really? we lost our right to contract? where is that at?

nevermind, i found it

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

well. maybe this means we're no longer really free, but only free to do what the government wants us to do.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
really? we lost our right to contract? where is that at?
Click to expand...
We didn't lose it but it is not absolute. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish overturned another minimum wage law, Adkins v. Children's Hospital. In Parrish the court found that employees and employers do not stand on equal footing when it comes to contracting work and that the state's police powers do extend to regulation of health and safety as well as hours worked and minimum wages paid. It is, however, a knee jerk to say that it was the end of contract rights. There are lots of contracts that the state does not get involved in.
 
RStringfield said:
The right wing's inconsistencies on limited government do nothing but create precedent for more and more and government regulation in the market.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/29/reform-backers-cite-court-ruling/

WASHINGTON – Defenders of the newly enacted national health care law and its rule that all Americans get health insurance have a powerful and recent Supreme Court precedent on their side, a 2005 ruling that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case, like the coming challenge to the health care mandate, was the reach of the federal government’s power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought or sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients. They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority “to regulate commerce.” Even “non-economic local activity” can come under federal regulation if it is “a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce,” Scalia wrote.
Click to expand...

Seriously Ron? The left just passed the largest socialist increase in government since the 1960's, as the strongest voice for less government on here you have been virtually silent and all you have to finally say about it is to attack the one righty you could find who fucked up prior to it?
Well I suppose you make a good point, but I think you miss the bigger point...
 
KingCondanomation said:
Good catch but ultimately not relevant, there is no historical precedent for the federal government forcing its citizens to purchase a good or service.
The act WILL be repealed.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's not quite accurate. In the early years the Militia Acts of 1792 required able bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase at their own expense:

a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder
Click to expand...
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, that's not quite accurate. In the early years the Militia Acts of 1792 required able bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase at their own expense:
Click to expand...

a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder
Click to expand...

can you imagine the outrage now, if it were mandated for people to buy an automatic weapon and ammo?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, that's not quite accurate. In the early years the Militia Acts of 1792 required able bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase at their own expense:
Click to expand...

If you read the act in its entirety you'll note that they conscripted them into the militia FIRST prior to mandating that the members of the militia purchase those items, NOT ordinary citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top