This is almost like some sort of pre-cognition movie
A flood of lawsuits from states seeking to block the health care law President Obama signed this week raises sharp questions about the power of the federal government to impose mandates on its citizens, but legal scholars disagree about how the cases will be decided if they are heard by the Supreme Court.
The question falls squarely on centuries-old constitutional debates about the reach of the federal government in state affairs. Legal scholars on the right contend requiring citizens to obtain health insurance is a case of excessive federal intrusion and should be overturned by the judicial branch, while liberal judicial experts say Washington’s power to require that Americans buy insurance is clearly permitted under commerce and taxation provisions in the constitution.
First, if they actually cared about the Constitution, they wouldn’t support this massive increase in the size and scope, the power over American lives, of this legislation.
Second, how is it possible for the Federal Congress to regulate something that you have not purchased yet by making you purchase it so they can regulate it? Sound crazy? It is.You, the consumer, have not purchased health insurance. You have not engaged in commerce. You cannot regulate through the commerce clause something which has not already been purchased. Furthermore, the commerce clause regards commerce between states, in this case, something you have purchased from another state. But, you aren’t allowed, by law, to purchase insurance from another state. So, by the Constitution, they aren’t allowed to regulate that thing you haven’t purchased in order to make you purchase that thing you haven’t purchased in order for them to regulate it.
Third, how does one tax something not already purchased? Is this like a pre-tax? Can we get Steven Spielberg to direct, with Tom Cruise playing Harry Reid, Cameron Diaz to play Queen Nancy, and Obama will be played by the girl in the pre-cog tank, the one who’s a little unstable?
Government may not be broken, but the people who run it sure are. I should stop here, but, I can’t
Proponents of the federal health bill note that the matter most likely to face a legal challenge — the mandate to buy insurance — will not go into effect until 2014. As a result, Obama administration lawyers are likely to argue that federal courts cannot block something that has not yet gone into effect.
But they can tax and regulate something that you haven’t purchased that they are making you purchase under tax and commerce clauses that are about things you might purchase but you haven’t purchased but they mandate you purchase? My head hurts.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
[…] Can Congress Regulate Something You Haven’t Purchased Yet To Make You Purchase It? » Pir… […]
“…the mandate to buy insurance — will not go into effect until 2014. As a result, Obama administration lawyers are likely to argue that federal courts cannot block something that has not yet gone into effect.”
Wow, what utterfly flimsy logic.
If we pass a law that all people over 65 are to be executed in 2014, does that mean we have to wait until 2014 and people are actually killed to overturn it?
An extreme example, but still valid because it involves violation in the future of one’s rights. That is the basis of why this law is being challenged.
If we passed a law saying ‘Medicare and Social Security will be dismantled in 2014’ these same proponents would be screaming bloody murder and making the case that the bill can be overturned prior to it going into effect.
What would be really interesting is if we attacked this from the standpoint of ‘right to privacy’. It seems there are some pretty serious violations of ‘right to privacy’ in this law.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the very right used to legalize abortion were used to overturn *this* abortion?
[…] Can Congress Regulate Something You Haven’t Purchased Yet To Make You Purchase It? […]