• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutionality of the Health Care Bill

Do you think the Bill will be FOUND Constitutional?


  • Total voters
    38

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've recently heard that 12 or so states are planning to file lawsuits against the government, regarding the mandate that people must have health care. This brings up the question of whether this bill will be found constitutional or not.

I personally believe this is a waste of time, and if it eventually appeals to the Supreme Court, it'll end there, with it being found constitutional.

Thoughts?
 
I'd be surprised to see the SC grant cert. Most lower courts will probably punt on it as well.
 
I'd be surprised to see the SC grant cert. Most lower courts will probably punt on it as well.
Ditto. They'll call it a political question and won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
 
I've recently heard that 12 or so states are planning to file lawsuits against the government, regarding the mandate that people must have health care. This brings up the question of whether this bill will be found constitutional or not.

I personally believe this is a waste of time, and if it eventually appeals to the Supreme Court, it'll end there, with it being found constitutional.

Thoughts?

I agree and that seems to be dominant opinion of most of the experts I've read as well. Here is one such opinion that cites precedence.
 
I wonder if these states will have any standing in challenging the law.
 
Though there were a lot of tensions during the debate yesterday with a couple of politicians calling this bill unconstitutional and states filling lawsuits against the bill, I doubt the courts will see it that way. I think a lot of this has to do with the critics fear of the changes being made in the current system we have (though not much is really changing at all).
 
I read about one state suing on the grounds that the federal government has no authority under the Commerce Clause to impose this healthcare bill on the states. That looks like the angle they are going with.

As far as what the Court will do, I do not know. Relatively recent cases involving the Commerce Clause have gone against the federal government.

One was United States v. Lopez which involved a federal law regulating guns in school zones. The Court struck down the federal government's power to regulate guns in school zones. Much of that ruling was based on the federal government's failure to prove the law was necessary to protect interstate commerce. The national economy was not effected by guns in school zones.

United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then came United States v. Morrison where a federal law involving violent crimes against women was struck down. The woman involved in the case claimed interstate commerce was affected because violent crime prevented women from seeking education and employment (etc.) in other states. The Court found this to be a bad reason to impose federal laws on the states.

United States v. Morrison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These two cases involve criminal activity, that was a part of the reason the Court struck them down. They felt crime was better suited to local laws. The major points of the decisions, though, were the federal government must first prove the national economy will be effected if the law is not imposed. I think the healthcare bill may pass that test but I am not certain. I would expect education and employment to be important determinants of the economy also, but the Court must have felt it had be more directly related to interstate commerce.

Is healthcare directly related to interstate commerce, or is it more local? I think that is an important question to ask.
 
I wonder if these states will have any standing in challenging the law.

What makes you think they wouldn't?

I think states lack standing in challenging the constitutionality of the legislation because they are not themselves directly impacted by its provisions.

Of course those states that are attempting to nullify the federal law with their own legislation will experience a sudden, violent collision with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and that will be the end of that.

So, all that's left is individuals who don't want to buy insurance: basically the free loaders. I guess I don't feel much sympathy for them.
 
I think the question is more about the reconciliation bill.
 
If it were to be found unconstitutional (and I can't imagine how) it would mean that just about every other similar bill would be found so as well, throwing our entire system of government into upheaval.

I still haven't heard a real argument as to why this bill, among all, is unconstitutional. Many opponents just seem to think that since they don't like it, it must be.
 
I'd be surprised to see the SC grant cert. Most lower courts will probably punt on it as well.

For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?
 
For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?

The Supreme Court can decide whether to take a case or not. That's called a writ of certiorari (granting "cert"). Sometimes they just ignore the really controversial ones.
 
The Supreme Court can decide whether to take a case or not. That's called a writ of certiorari (granting "cert"). Sometimes they just ignore the really controversial ones.

That was my guess, but I have found far too often guessing gets me in trouble. Thank you for taking the time to explain.
 
For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?

Although I got the gist of what he meant I had to look it up, this is a nice and succinct conveyance of what is meant in lay terms (or it was for me):

Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the Justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari]Certiorari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Somehow Case law can make supporting arguments either for or against, but should it get to the SCOTUS, case law does not fully explain this same situation. The variable with the SCOTUS is still the politics behind it - and that there are multiple states challenging this and maybe coordinating their efforts, this may provide better arguments rather than a single perspective of just the commerce clause challenge.
 
If they find only the part mandating participation in the government plan which is what it is, the bill will become unfunded. Think that may increase the deficit?! They sure won't back down.
 
I think states lack standing in challenging the constitutionality of the legislation because they are not themselves directly impacted by its provisions.

It's unsettled as to whether the states can sue parens patriae on behalf of their citizens, but even if they couldn't, they're absolutely entitled to sue where the federal law conflicts with their own.

Of course those states that are attempting to nullify the federal law with their own legislation will experience a sudden, violent collision with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and that will be the end of that.

But the Supremacy clause doesn't apply if the law is unconstitutional, which is the entire point of the suit.

So, all that's left is individuals who don't want to buy insurance: basically the free loaders. I guess I don't feel much sympathy for them.

So now the uninsured are freeloaders? How quickly the democratic message changes. :lol:

If it were to be found unconstitutional (and I can't imagine how) it would mean that just about every other similar bill would be found so as well, throwing our entire system of government into upheaval.

I keep on hearing people say this, but it just doesn't make sense to me. What makes you think that a decision rendering this program unconstitutional would automatically overturn everything (or anything) else? I'm not saying that it means the result will be different, but this is pretty clearly distinguishable from Social Security or Medicare.

I still haven't heard a real argument as to why this bill, among all, is unconstitutional. Many opponents just seem to think that since they don't like it, it must be.

I posted the position of two of the lawyers challenging this topic right above here. Here are a few other discussions of the topic:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/22/is-the-tax-power-infinite/

washingtonpost.com

http://volokh.com/2010/03/23/what-will-the-courts-do-with-the-individual-mandate/

For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?

What groucho said. Also, even the lower courts have a whole bunch of tools at their disposal that they can use to avoid rendering important issues unless they absolutely have to. I wouldn't be surprised to see those used here.
 
%7B8f87564c-1a9b-49f5-a59f-37eb0386f034%7D.gif
 
I wonder how the Federal Government can cite the Interstate Commerce Clause as justification for their health care legislation when insurance can not be sold interstate....... seems like the commerce clause would be moot.
 
Back
Top Bottom