Why I think Obamacare will be upheld completely

[fskimospy]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+activism



There is no conceivable way that the mere act of reconsidering previous precedent and not following it is "judicial activism" under the definition. The ruling could very well be judicial activism, but not because the court doesn't follow precedent.

Black's Law Dictionary:

A philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent."

 

[Atreus21]

Of course it doesn't render the Constitution irrelevant. Congress could not enact such laws about things that do not substantially affect interstate commerce.

Which can be twisted to include nearly any activity that has the potential to affect interstate commerce, as in Wickard v. Filburn, which is essentially any activity.

That's not what the argument says at all. The argument says that in the case of health insurance the government has had this power since its inception. This is simply a fact. If you have a problem with it, then you have a problem with the Constitution as the framers wrote it. I thought you supported the Constitution?

Something tells me that framers, who apparently took great care to enumerate powers which the government did not have, would take exception to the notion that merely collecting taxes granted the government nearly unlimited power to impose its whims on its citizens.

I have convinced you of nothing, these opinions are identical to ones that you have already held for quite some time. What people often do when presented with contrary information that threatens the way they think about things is double down on what they already believe. That appears to be what you are doing here.

The Republican Party is the most fiscally irresponsible major party in the world today. If that appeals to you, fine.

Well, if I'm doubling down, it's as I said earlier. You started from an extreme position: that there is no difference between government collecting taxes and forcing you to buy a product of its choice. If that's true, then to argue against that I have to move to the opposite extreme: that all taxes are by their very nature collected to an increasingly severe detriment to our freedom, and for that reason must be restrained by any means possible.

 

[fskimospy]

Which can be twisted to include nearly any activity that has the potential to affect interstate commerce, as in Wickard v. Filburn, which is essentially any activity.

So now it's 'nearly any'? You have just accepted limiting principles.

Something tells me that framers, who apparently took great care to enumerate powers which the government did not have, would take exception to the notion that merely collecting taxes granted the government nearly unlimited power to impose its whims on its citizens.

You're just hand waving now. The Constitution as written allows the Congress to levy taxes. The Constitution as written also allows the Congress to expend funds on public health, which health insurance inarguably is. There is simply no rational way to argue that the Constitution as written by the framers would prevent the government from taxing you and then buying you health care with it. If you believe that this power should not be in the hands of government you are opposing the Constitution as the framers wrote it. That's fine if you want to do that, as they were far from perfect men. You need to understand what you are arguing however.

Well, if I'm doubling down, it's as I said earlier. You started from an extreme position: that there is no difference between government collecting taxes and forcing you to buy a product of its choice. To argue against that, I have to move to the opposite extreme: that all taxes are by their very nature collected to an increasingly severe detriment to our freedom, and for that reason must be restrained by any means possible.

My position wasn't extreme or not extreme, it was simply a statement of fact. There is effectively no difference between the government forcing you to spend $1,000 on health care yourself and the government taxing you $1,000 and spending it on health care for you. Recognition of this fact doesn't force you to do anything. It would be nice if you took it and reexamined your opinion, but instead you have decided to adopt an opinion that you appear to be implicitly stating you do not actually hold. That seems awfully silly.

 

[Jadow]

Any law that forces me as an employer to have to pay for the healthcare of an employee's TWENTY SIX year old kid is fvcking ridiculous.

 

[Atreus21]

So now it's 'nearly any'? You have just accepted limiting principles.

Only because I'm humble. I'm unable to identify any. Perhaps someone else can.

You're just hand waving now. The Constitution as written allows the Congress to levy taxes. The Constitution as written also allows the Congress to expend funds on public health, which health insurance inarguably is. There is simply no rational way to argue that the Constitution as written by the framers would prevent the government from taxing you and then buying you health care with it. If you believe that this power should not be in the hands of government you are opposing the Constitution as the framers wrote it. That's fine if you want to do that, as they were far from perfect men. You need to understand what you are arguing however.

Okay. The government can tax. It can use that tax to force people to buy whatever it wants. By extension, they can force people not to buy whatever it wants. By extension again, they can dictate to people what they can or cannot do with whatever they are forced to buy.

What constitutional limits apply to government at all using this argument? The government can force me to buy [broccoli | health insurance] with tax dollars. Why can't they dictate to me [how it shall be cooked | what doctors I may use]? What constitutional barrier exists to stop them from that?

My position wasn't extreme or not extreme, it was simply a statement of fact. There is effectively no difference between the government forcing you to spend $1,000 on health care yourself and the government taxing you $1,000 and spending it on health care for you. Recognition of this fact doesn't force you to do anything. It would be nice if you took it and reexamined your opinion, but instead you have decided to adopt an opinion that you appear to be implicitly stating you do not actually hold. That seems awfully silly.

I don't hold that position. It's the only hypothetical rebuttal I can think of to your position. I don't agree that the government has unlimited power over what we buy or don't buy, and by the tone of the SCOTUS hearings, neither do a few SC justices. But if I did, the only reasonable way to defeat that is by believing that all taxes are evil, since they feed the beast that takes freedoms.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It was a general statement of congressional power not limited to any one clause.

It was not a license to do anything the federal government wants although some have perverted it for that purpose. But it's like 1441 and "severe consequences". Whatever works.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay. The government can tax. It can use that tax to force people to buy whatever it wants. By extension, they can force people not to buy whatever it wants. By extension again, they can dictate to people what they can or cannot do with whatever they are forced to buy.

What constitutional limits apply to government at all using this argument? The government can force me to buy [broccoli | health insurance] with tax dollars. Why can't they dictate to me [how it shall be cooked | what doctors I may use]? What constitutional barrier exists to stop them from that?

Those extensions don't actually make much sense. Yes though, Congress has wide latitude to prohibit the sale of things. You lose the script when you say that Congress, by virtue of forcing people to buy things, can force people to do whatever they want with it. For example one of the reasons why the broccoli example is so stupid is that Congress lacks the power to force you to eat the broccoli they could make you buy. (right to privacy, control over your body, etc)

Do you accept now though that the Constitution does in fact give the government the power to tax you and buy health insurance for you with those taxes? Do you still object to it despite that's how the framers wanted it? If so, how would you have it instead?

I don't hold that position. It's the only hypothetical rebuttal I can think of to your position. I don't agree that the government has unlimited power over what we buy or don't buy, and by the tone of the SCOTUS hearings, neither do a few SC justices. But if I did, the only reasonable way to defeat that is by believing that all taxes are evil, since they feed the beast that takes freedoms.

All laws take freedoms away, so unless you're a anarchist that doesn't believe in private property I don't see the point of this argument.

 

[Anarchist420]

It was not a license to do anything the federal government wants although some have perverted it for that purpose.

It kind of was which is one of many good reasons the Antifederalists opposed the Federal Constitution.

 

[woolfe9999]

A420 thinks the law will be upheld? Dammit. Now it's for certain it's going to get tossed. And I was hoping the questioning at oral argument didn't mean much of anything.

 

[fskimospy]

A420 thinks the law will be upheld? Dammit. Now it's for certain it's going to get tossed. And I was hoping the questioning at oral argument didn't mean much of anything.

That was my first thought too. Having A420 agree with me makes me deeply uncomfortable.

 

[PokerGuy]

Black's Law Dictionary:

Exactly, so the point stands.

A philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions

The mere fact that they reconsider a previous precedent or ruling does not make it judicial activism.

 

[Anarchist420]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait until next week for the decision, which probably means that Roberts and Kennedy have been considering it.

I should note even Mitt Romney expects it to be upheld because he's always talking about replacing it. Perhaps he has some insider knowledge about it.

 

[sm625]

Govt and the bankers are trying to cover up a massive credit collapse and deflationary depression. They simply must spend more money, I mean borrow more money. So the Fed can buy more bonds and everyone can be happy... everyone that is except for those people who work for a living and see their purchasing power erode. But then again most of these people are so careless and clueless that they will just surrender more and more of their paycheck to this system, all the while patting themselves on the back because "their guy" didnt raise taxes. What a joke. Obamacare plays a critical role in this because it represents a truly massive spending push.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

That is not where we need to be spending right now, though. It's a bad move.

 

[woolfe9999]

Exactly, so the point stands.

The mere fact that they reconsider a previous precedent or ruling does not make it judicial activism.

No it doesn't, per se. But look at Citizens United. There were only 2 prior cases directly on point, and the SCOTUS overturned both of them by extending the logic of two off point prior rulings. The most recent of the overturned prior rulings was only 4 years old. So much for stare decisis. The pattern of this court is to disregard any and all existing precedents in order to interfere with legislation that conflicts with their view of public policy. I expect the same here. You'll be happy that day, because you will have gotten the kind of judicial activism that you approve of.

 

[Anarchist420]

Stephan Kinsella and Redstate.com expect it to be upheld (the latter is not of Redstate, so it's two different sources). Stephan Kinsella went so far as to say that Scalia could vote in favor of it and that it could be 7-2.

If the Supreme Court struck it down, then they would have to strike medicare down as well (because Medicare is a tax, just like the mandate is) and they would never surrender the power of the gov to tax.

In any event, the U.S. Federal Constitution needs to be rescinded and pro-liberty candidates for public office need to advocate that even if it means they'll lose the election in the short term. This "restore the Constitution" crap needs to subside.

 

[lopri]

States aren't taxing federal banks. Non sequitur.

Do you even understand what that ruling (McCulloch v. Maryland) has meant for the country..? Or are you just a troll with one liner?

Whether the court will uphold or strike down the Obamacare, McCulloch v. Maryland will be at the bottom of its reasoning. Wanna bet?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yeah, and we all know the slippery slope stuff is just nonsense and scare mongering. The slippery slope people were whining about slippery slope in NYC with the food and drink bans..... oh, wait.

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with handing the government the power to make everyone purchase a third party product they might neither want nor need.

Careful with that axe Eugene, you never know who you might end up cutting.

 

[MovingTarget]

No decision has been released so far today, but is expected soon. Honestly, the fact that they are still putting this one together is particularly ominous.

Bump for the impending decision....whenever that is....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Decision will be released on Thursday.