"Somebody help me understand why it's unconstitutional...."

[indianajoe]

A friend (an actual friend this time) posted up in a social forum, I'm sure in response to Indiana joining 13 other states in challenging the constitutionality of the new health care law. I don't know if I'm changing any minds with this stuff, responding to these kinds of statements. But it gives me a chance to think and dig for facts, and helps me understand how to think about what I feel. If the other person gets an opportunity to hear something rational and substantial from the conservative side of the discussion, that's cool. One way or the other, it helps me.

So she starts...

Help me understand why some believe its unconstitutional to mandate that everyone have health insurance but ok to mandate car and homeowners insurance. Are they saying that material possessions are worth more than a person's health? I don't get it!

... and I go....

Can I take a whack at this, Gail? If I drive a car, I'm required to have insurance – and by the state, not the federal government. If I choose *not* to own a vehicle (say, I live in downtown Chicago and take the El, or I live in Boulder and ride a mountain bike everywhere), I’m not required to still buy the auto insurance. But no such "out" exists with this law -- I still have to buy the car insurance whether I want or need or or even have a car.

It's one thing to regulate activity, but a whole ‘nother beast to *require* a person to participate in an activity (perhaps against their will). Are you aware that Title IV of this law amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow IRS agents to find and punish those who don't sign up? They estimate they'll hire ~17,000 new agents for this new enforcement power. This is a whole new level of oversight and enforcement and control over what have heretofore been personal decisions.

Next, this law *requires states* to establish benefit exchanges… or the Secretary of HHS will step in and take over. As far as that goes, the Supreme Court has struck down two laws in recent years on grounds that the US Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of a state government to administer a federal program -- which this law does. And which is part of the reason why Indiana is joining 13 other states to challenge the constitutionality of this law.

I could go on: AT&T and Verizon and Caterpillar and Valero Energy and 3M and Medtronic are already warning that they may have to lay off people or cancel coverage for retirees because of increased costs, and Henry Waxman is demanding analyses and company documents and emails going back to 2003 and CEOs appearing before him to explain themselves. Intimidation? “No kids with preexisting conditions denied,” but then “…ooops, not so much...

Please... don’t let people make the easy but false analogy that it’s about relative worth, about cars versus people. It's not about a lack of compassion for people and it's not about what Frank Rich says it is. There's a lot with health care that needs fixed, absolutely. People need access to care, and this system has been hobbled and failing for a long time.

State-level programs can work. The Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) has been providing HSAs to 50,000 low-income Hoosiers and was an enormously popular and effective program. I think the words Gov. Daniels used was that this program would “be annihilated” by the new federal law. They’ve already frozen enrollment, anticipating that these Hoosiers will be pitched onto the new rolls of an expanded Medicaid program.

We’ve got to improve health care, yes. And we want to do the noble and right thing by helping do for people who have trouble doing for themselves. But if we risk throwing aside the Constitution because it feels good to feel like we’re finally doing something, we’re risking a thing that makes the US unique and special in the world.

At the core of it, it’s about the Founders' intent, enshrined in the Constitution, that the federal government have limited powers that are specifically granted to it by that Constitution, and that the states have sovereign powers reserved to them. This is not an esoteric, sophomore-level, law-school, coffee-shop debate... these are foundational principles on which this country rests.

This country’s health care issues can be fixed without throwing the US Constitution and free markets and our founding principles out the window.

I’ll just add again a quote I posted up the other day: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." —Thomas Jefferson

What do you think? (Man, that was my whole evening on this… see how much I like you?)

 

[abnk]

Here's something I learned today: Most states, including Indiana, do not require you to have auto insurance. You only have to show the state that you have a certain amount of money (~$35,000) put aside for that purpose. While I'm not clear on this, the state may have to hold this money. I'm pointing this out so you can use it as an argument. Auto insurance is not mandatory in Indiana.

 

[smokingman]

Car insurance is not required of every citizen.If you do not drive for example.It also has nothing to do with you having insurance on yourself,it states you must have liability insurance(to protect OTHERS,so you do not interfere with there rights should you crash into them).It is also in the domain of state law,not federal.
The difference is the federal government has never forced anyone to buy anything.This is forcing you to buy a product(service) from a private company(unless you are 150% of the poverty level).The constitution does not allow for the government to force a citizen to buy anything.This bill clearly does,and there are penalties enforced by the IRS for anyone who does not obey(Up to 2% of your gross income).
So with car insurance you are protecting others rights,with the obama care you are protecting your own rights(forcibly)to health care.

There is more to it,but that is the short version.It also tramples on some state laws putting it on even less legal ground.

 

[indianajoe]

Here's something I learned today: Most states, including Indiana, do not require you to have auto insurance. You only have to show the state that you have a certain amount of money (~$35,000) put aside for that purpose. While I'm not clear on this, the state may have to hold this money. I'm pointing this out so you can use it as an argument. Auto insurance is not mandatory in Indiana.

Good get, abnk. Thanks. I'll make sure I have that fact at hand.

Here's the applicable Indiana Code:

IC 9-25-4-7

Methods of proving financial responsibility
Sec. 7. Proof of financial responsibility when required under this article may be given by any of the following methods:
(1) Proof that a policy or policies of motor vehicle liability insurance have been obtained and are in full force and effect.
(2) Proof that a bond has been duly executed.
(3) Proof that deposit has been made of money or securities.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.13.
Indiana Code 9-25-4

 

[rambone]

The 10th Amendment

The way our country was founded, it was supposed to support divided power across the states, and very little power left in the hands of the Federal Government.

The Federal Government was supposed to only be in charge of a few, very specific things. International matters, diplomacy, trade, military, immigration, etc. They were absolutely never supposed to have so much power that they have today, regulating tiny things like tanning beds.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is short and sweet. It means that the few things specifically mentioned to be Federal powers, are the only powers it is supposed to get. The rest are given to the states, or individuals. This is the main reason the Healthcare bill is unconstitutional, but not the only one.

If something is to be regulated, or illegal, it needs to be done by local towns, counties, or states. But never the Federal Government. And any laws that the states want to create, must also follow the Constitution. Therefore things like highways, universal healthcare, abortion, cigarette/alcohol regulations, drug laws, regulating tanning beds. etc. must be left up to the states. I would argue that things like gun control laws break the 2nd Amendment even if they are enacted by the states, but regardless, the Federal Government is all over that too.

The beautiful thing about our country, the way it is designed to be, is that if a certain state doesn't appeal to you, you can move and find one that does. If you want universal healthcare, you can move to Massachusetts or Oregon who already are doing it. If you don't like high taxes, you can move to a state like Florida, which has zero state income tax. If you like every detail of your life to be regulated, you can try out California. If you want a state where the law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to bear arms, you can live in Illinois.

But when the Federal Government jumps in and takes powers it was never supposed to have, not only do we never get those powers back, but then you lose your choices about what state works best for you. When the Federal Government takes over Healthcare, there won't be anywhere to move to, to avoid the high taxes, messed up economy, and long waiting lists to see a doctor.

 

[dross]

One of the main purposes of government is to ensure that we can all live together without doing harm to others. For instance, government can make sure I don't dump my sewage into the stream in front of my house and pollute the water of people downstream.

Driving regulation is a perfectly reasonable use of government. Driving is dangerous, requires constant interaction between citizens, and requires high levels of organized cooperation. It's very likely that you will someday cause an accident for which you will owe money, and it's quite possible that you will then owe more than you can pay. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and your way out of paying for insurance is to not drive. Also, car insurance is dictated by state law, and states have more leeway than the federal government under the Constitution.

As to health insurance, it's simple. There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the government to do anything like they've done with this healthcare bill. As there is no reasonable authorization, they'll use the much abused interstate commerce clause. Another way to say it is that if this healthcare bill is constitutional, there are then really no restrictions on what the federal government may do. If they can do this, the Constitution ceases to be a limit on government.

 

[dross]

One of the main purposes of government is to ensure that we can all live together without doing harm to others. For instance, government can make sure I don't dump my sewage into the stream in front of my house and pollute the water of people downstream.

Driving regulation is a perfectly reasonable use of government. Driving is dangerous, requires constant interaction between citizens, and requires high levels of organized cooperation. It's very likely that you will someday cause an accident for which you will owe money, and it's quite possible that you will then owe more than you can pay. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and your way out of paying for insurance is to not drive. Also, car insurance is dictated by state law, and states have more leeway than the federal government under the Constitution.

As to health insurance, it's simple. There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the government to do anything like they've done with this healthcare bill. As there is no reasonable authorization, they'll use the much abused interstate commerce clause. Another way to say it is that if this healthcare bill is constitutional, there are then really no restrictions on what the federal government may do. If they can do this, the Constitution ceases to be a limit on government.

 

[WabashMX5]

As there is no reasonable authorization, they'll use the much abused interstate commerce clause. Another way to say it is that if this healthcare bill is constitutional, there are then really no restrictions on what the federal government may do. If they can do this, the Constitution ceases to be a limit on government.

Actually, I've heard Obamacare supporters cite the General Welfare Clause instead. (You know it's scary when even our bastardized Commerce Clause jurisprudence doesn't give the federal government "enough" power for their tastes.) At least it reflects an almost-honest admission that they're utterly unconcerned with Constitutional limits, and demand that the feds have the power to legislate anything they think is a nifty idea at the time....

 

[5.56'aholic]

liability insurance is all that is needed in any state, so that you can pay for the damage that you yourself cause. Lenders require full coverage in the event of an accident to prevent their loss on the vehicle. Homeowners insurance is to protect the lender more so then the mortgage holder as well. In both cases, you can choose to not drive or own a home, thus exempting you for carrying insurance on either. If they still don't understand the simplicity of that, if they dont own a motorcycle ask them if they pay insurance for one.

The other persons point is moot in reality, as this is the first time you are actually required to carry insurance just because your alive.

 

[leb1982]

You all make very good points but keep this in mind the bill was only passed the way it was, was due to both parties not agreeing on the others version of the bill. I do agree that we as a country need some type of health care reform but we will never see a true or good bill passed due to the simple fact that the parties can’t get along and act as a branch of government instead they are trying to hard to pass personal agendas. We can debate on how good or bad one party is from the other or how much you like or dislike the president but for us to move forward as a country we need to have people in all levels of government that will vote the way the public would like for them to instead of big businesses. Our government has been screwed up for awhile now it didn't just happen within the last two years.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Why did we need health care reform?

We had and still have the best health care in the world

If you need care you simply walk into any emergency room, and no questions asked they will treat you.

 

[Bubba]

People seem united in saying that healthcare reform is needed but I wish folks would realize that reform doesn't necessarily mean more laws. What Congress passed was nothing short of a citizenship tax. If you are an American then you must pay or face the consequences. Even the below-poverty insurance is still not free, it's just subsidized.

 

[smoking357]

It's a terribly inconsistent position to support mandatory auto insurance whilst excoriating mandatory health insurance. Republicans use the armed power of the government to force people to fund private companies, and they like to say it's immoral to disobey the auto insurance laws. Republicans have a long history of cheerfully enacting laws that result in putting money into private companies' coffers, and they really only oppose this legislation because it limits the profit ability of private companies.

The government forces me to pay for mandatory police coverage, fire coverage, military coverage, transportation interrogation, etc., even though I would make different market choices in many of the above "services."

The government in Indiana, through the vigorous actions of Mitch Daniels, forces me to pay for the Colts, even though I hope they lose every game they ever play. The government forces me to pay for public-option football at Purdue, Indiana, Ball State, Indiana State, etc., and the Republicans go crazy cheering at the IU-Purdue games. The government forces me to pay for public-option local schools, even though there is no way I would willingly give money to the Indiana public schools. Republicans are even well known to say things like "I'm moving to Boone County, because they have good schools there." I might take the Republicans more seriously if they were demanding the repeal of public schools and the Indiana University Basketball team.

The Republicans have picked an odd time to proclaim themselves fiscal conservatives and limited-government advocates. Republicans love funding big-government programs, just their type of big government.

This horse done left the barn, a long time ago, and Republicans have spent so much time in court arguing how extra-constitutional programs are legal that this will be seen by the courts as merely the next step on a path they built. If the courts overturn this mandatory government program, their ruling would put the rest of the system at risk, and there's no way they are going to create a pathway to suing to get out from under your local police department.

 

[smoking357]

One of the main purposes of government is to ensure that we can all live together without doing harm to others. For instance, government can make sure I don't dump my sewage into the stream in front of my house and pollute the water of people downstream.

Driving regulation is a perfectly reasonable use of government. Driving is dangerous, requires constant interaction between citizens, and requires high levels of organized cooperation. It's very likely that you will someday cause an accident for which you will owe money, and it's quite possible that you will then owe more than you can pay. Driving is a privilege, not a right,

Fine. Presto! There's no right to live in the United States without health care, just as there's no right to live in the United States without the protection of the military, the jurisdiction of the federal courts or apart from the authority of the laws of Congress.

If you disagree with this funding of private companies, the government can nationalize the entire health care industry and run it as it does any other federal agency, funding it with taxes. What's the objection, then?

The "driving is a privilege" crowd have made every governmental expansion possible, as they have brought the dragon to the doorstep.

 

[Rizzo]

The dumbed down public schools have obviously done their job in creating American citizens totally ignorant of our constitutional configuration for the separation of powers, checks and balances of power, states rights and the federal system.

Laws requiring you to buy insurance or have cash aside to cover liability are State laws. They only require you to buy this IF you drive a car on public roads. These are state laws.

The new health bill is a Federal law not state law. The federal government was NOT given the authority to pass laws on this in the constitution. Therefore right off it is unconstitutional.

READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT. A federal law forcing me to buy car insurance would be unconstitutional as well.

WHY?!?!?

It's simple. Because we as a nation are foolishly ignoring the 10th amendment and empowered the federal government with overreaching power, it thus becomes corrupt. The reason Washington is corrupt is because it has too much power. Power corrupts.

The rich, powerful, elite and multi-national corporations of a "military-industrial complex" (as President Eisenhower called them) have bought out politicians. Through bribes, intimidation and political corruption they control the United States. Look how health care was passed. Bribes, intimidation and twisting congressional rules. The house didn't even "vote" on it technically. Why do we stand for it?

The wisdom of our founders was to not give the federal government much power and leave most governing to local government. Buying off 100 senators is one thing... but how do you buy of 50 state legislators. That is why there has been a subversive tenancy by the powerful to consolidate more and more power in Washington DC with one unconstitutional government agency after another. They are consolidating power so they can control everything for their own financial interests. These corporation owners have even got the government to buy stock in their companies when they get in trouble. It's fascism that mixes corporations and government into one thing. We own part of GM. This is nuts!

The founders believed too much power corrupts. So they spread out the power among the states except that which HAD to be Federal or on a national level, like national defense, treaties, and interstate commerce. And even the power they did give them was split between three distinct branches of government and enacted with a system of checks and balances to ensure that if one branch tried to take power not delegated by the constitution that the other branches would step in and balance power back out.

If we would follow the constitution we could save freedom. But today Americans don't even understand much less follow the wise constitution our forefathers fought and died to give us. With each new congress and administration we lose more and more freedom.

God have mercy.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There is no General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare reference is in the preamble, which SCOTUS has ruled is not a governing provision of the Constitution.

Actually, I've heard Obamacare supporters cite the General Welfare Clause instead. (You know it's scary when even our bastardized Commerce Clause jurisprudence doesn't give the federal government "enough" power for their tastes.) At least it reflects an almost-honest admission that they're utterly unconcerned with Constitutional limits, and demand that the feds have the power to legislate anything they think is a nifty idea at the time....

 

[dross]

I made my case for auto insurance, and the difference between healthcare insurance. The auto insurance laws are corrupt, no doubt, and I would change them. I think in principle they are acceptable, however.

The General Welfare statement is one of intent, the mechanism for which is outlined in the details of what the government is authorizied to do.

 

[WabashMX5]

There is no General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare reference is in the preamble, which SCOTUS has ruled is not a governing provision of the Constitution.

The General Welfare statement is one of intent, the mechanism for which is outlined in the details of what the government is authorizied to do.

Actually, there is a "general welfare" reference under Art. I, Sec. 8, giving Congress power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

Nevertheless, given that the sovereign States delegated Congress only limited, enumerated powers -- and expressly reserved the rest through the Tenth Amendment -- the clause clearly isn't carte blanche to make Congress a general legislature, empowered to do anything that tickles its fancy (our Gawd-awful Commerce Clause jurisprudence notwithstanding).

 

[jbombelli]

First, auto insurance is not a federal requirement. It's a state issue. Second, if you don't drive a car, you don't have to have it. You could walk, take a taxi or public transportation, ride a bicycle, etc. None of those options requires auto insurance.

As far as homeowners insurance? That's also not a federal, across-the-board requirement. If your mortgage lender says you don't have to have homeowners insurance, then you don't have to have it. And if your house is paid off, you still don't have to have it.

The federal government isn't really involved in those requirements.

 

[smoking357]

First, auto insurance is not a federal requirement. It's a state issue. Second, if you don't drive a car, you don't have to have it. You could walk, take a taxi or public transportation, ride a bicycle, etc. None of those options requires auto insurance.

Sorry. That doesn't work. When your only ability to claim a space of freedom is to ride a bicycle in a rainstorm, the argument is bankrupt.

The fact is that all those Republicans who say driving is a privilege have created the omnipotent monster that government can now use for whatever it wants.

When Republicans start saying that driving, the basic means of getting around the country, is a right, then they'll again be worthy of a vote.