• 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!

I don't understand the Texas judge's reasoning on ACA

TurtleDude said:
how so-if the part of the law that allowed Roberts to claim it was a tax no longer exists, then the ruling that upheld it no longer applies
Click to expand...

Because its a non sequiter.

the question was whether the individual mandate was constitutional. Not whether thus the entire ACA was constitutional.

Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate constituted a tax.. which is a power granted to congress in the constitution.

The individual mandate has thus become moot. That's it.

that does not mean that Medicaid expansion, Medicare changes to fee schedules for physicians, exchanges,, tax subsidies for healthcare provisions etc.. which is all "obamacare".. is now "unconstitutional".

Any first year law student should understand that.. come on man.
 
TurtleDude said:
the leftwing banc claimed that the commerce clause allowed the AHCA. Five judges said NO but Roberts-trying to be clever and ingratiate himself to the mainly leftwing legal scholarship community, pretended it was a tax
Click to expand...

Nope.. they did not. They claimed that the commerce clause allowed an individual mandate.
 
jaeger19 said:
Because its a non sequiter.

the question was whether the individual mandate was constitutional. Not whether thus the entire ACA was constitutional.

Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate constituted a tax.. which is a power granted to congress in the constitution.

The individual mandate has thus become moot. That's it.

that does not mean that Medicaid expansion, Medicare changes to fee schedules for physicians, exchanges,, tax subsidies for healthcare provisions etc.. which is all "obamacare".. is now "unconstitutional".

Any first year law student should understand that.. come on man.
Click to expand...

so you are arguing the commerce clause allows all of that?
 
TurtleDude said:
actually the activist ruling was Roberts trying to be clever and rejecting the Obama argument that the AHCA was not a Tax and finding it was. Now that the one leg upon which Roberts based his nonsense on is gone, the argument collapses
Click to expand...

Trump called for a muslim ban and then enacted the travel ban with a wink and a nod. Should the court have taken his muslim ban comments in to consideration when ruling or should they have simply looked at the text of what passed?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are arguing the commerce clause allows all of that?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. health crosses state lines.. the health of each state affects the military status of the whole nation and its safety. That's just one of many examples of how health and healthcare have national impacts and thus can fall under the purview of the federal government.

Healthcare insurance most assuredly crosses state lines. as does health status... disease does not recognize state lines. Therefore its regulation falls under the commerce clause.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Trump called for a muslim ban and then enacted the travel ban with a wink and a nod. Should the court have taken his muslim ban comments in to consideration when ruling or should they have simply looked at the text of what passed?
Click to expand...

relevance?
 
jaeger19 said:
Absolutely. health crosses state lines.. the health of each state affects the military status of the whole nation and its safety. That's just one of many examples of how health and healthcare have national impacts and thus can fall under the purview of the federal government.

Healthcare insurance most assuredly crosses state lines. as does health status... disease does not recognize state lines. Therefore its regulation falls under the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

that sort of thinking is why we have the bloated federal government we have today
 
TurtleDude said:
relevance?
Click to expand...

Curiosity. You seem to be saying here that if Obama called it not a tax that this somehow should be considered when the court is ruling on it, was wondering if you think the same thing about the muslim/travel ban. I remember many conservatives trashing a decision on the travel ban when the decision included a mention of Trumps numerous comments on banning muslims.
 
jaeger19 said:
Absolutely. health crosses state lines.. the health of each state affects the military status of the whole nation and its safety. That's just one of many examples of how health and healthcare have national impacts and thus can fall under the purview of the federal government.

Healthcare insurance most assuredly crosses state lines. as does health status... disease does not recognize state lines. Therefore its regulation falls under the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

Except for the little problem that the commerce clause requires...you know...commerce. Last I knew health was not a commerce, but a state of being.
 
TurtleDude said:
that sort of thinking is why we have the bloated federal government we have today
Click to expand...

that kind of thinking is also why we are one of the most free.. most powerful, most safe and most prosperous nations on earth.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except for the little problem that the commerce clause requires...you know...commerce. Last I knew health was not a commerce, but a state of being.
Click to expand...


And as I point out.. healthcare insurance is most assuredly commerce.. and it most assuredly crosses state lines.. as does health.. which affects said commerce.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It wasn't a "tax" it was a fine. The government fines people for not doing what it tells you to do.
Click to expand...

That would be a stronger argument if people below the income tax filing threshold had to pay.
 
jaeger19 said:
And as I point out.. healthcare insurance is most assuredly commerce.. and it most assuredly crosses state lines.. as does health.. which affects said commerce.
Click to expand...

And yet, fining people for not buying into commerce is not what the commerce clause is about or has ever been about. Not to mention the little fact that not all insurance crosses state lines. Which the Feds have no power over.

And you're confusing commerce with trade.

Commerce and trade is:

commerce relates to intercourse or dealings with foreign nations, states, or political communities, while trade denotes business intercourse or mutual traffic within the limits of a state or nation, or the buying, selling, and exchanging of articles between members of the same community.
Click to expand...

Link

1: There is a commerce clause in the Constitution, not a trade clause.

2: Trade is the MUTUAL traffic of business. Businesses, be they healthcare insurance or selling manure is about trade. Meaning that commerce does not apply as commerce is about dealings between foreign countries, states, or political communities. Which by the by is the original meaning and intent of the commerce clause in the Constitution. The Federal government was never meant to regulate businesses. States could, but not the federal government.
 
Greenbeard said:
That would be a stronger argument if people below the income tax filing threshold had to pay.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to pay for a certain amount of time (2 years iirc). After that time the fine would start applying to them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not according to H&R who I do my taxes through. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Okay. Well, according to the Affordable Care Act people below the income tax filing threshold never pay the tax. As one might expect.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet, fining people for not buying into commerce is not what the commerce clause is about or has ever been about..
Click to expand...

Actually.. yes it has. Heck.. even the founding fathers in the militia acts stated that individuals needed to procure certain items.. such as knapsacks.. and so forth.

Your car for example comes with special safety devices.. all because of federal safety regulations.. which you are basically forced to purchase just as the companies that produce them are forced to put into the car.. or face fines etc.

Workplace safety features..

So on and so forth. The examples are numerous and go back to the beginnings of the country.

And you're confusing commerce with trade.
Click to expand...

Nope. As I pointed out.. healthcare, healthcare insurance and health crosses state lines.. thus commerce.

And by the way.. the federal government was most certainly about regulating businesses.. as they did commerce between the states.. meanwhile.. individuals within a community.. not so much.
 
jaeger19 said:
that kind of thinking is also why we are one of the most free.. most powerful, most safe and most prosperous nations on earth.
Click to expand...

we were that before the FDR nonsense too
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually.. yes it has. Heck.. even the founding fathers in the militia acts stated that individuals needed to procure certain items.. such as knapsacks.. and so forth.
Click to expand...

For state militias you are correct. As the 2nd militia act stated "every citizen, so enrolled and notified". It only applied when/if they were conscripted. Link

jaeger19 said:
Your car for example comes with special safety devices.. all because of federal safety regulations.. which you are basically forced to purchase just as the companies that produce them are forced to put into the car.. or face fines etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry but regulations on the manufacturing of items =/= me having to buy a car. Much less a car with those safety features. I could go out and buy a Model T if I wanted to and drive it as it was originally built if I wanted to.

jaeger19 said:
Workplace safety features..
Click to expand...

Workplace =/= buying things.

jaeger19 said:
So on and so forth. The examples are numerous and go back to the beginnings of the country.
Click to expand...

Keep trying.

jaeger19 said:
Nope. As I pointed out.. healthcare, healthcare insurance and health crosses state lines.. thus commerce.

And by the way.. the federal government was most certainly about regulating businesses.. as they did commerce between the states.. meanwhile.. individuals within a community.. not so much.
Click to expand...

You're still confusing commerce with trade. The federal government originally only regulated state commerce. IE: They made it to where State A government could not put excessive tarrifs on products from State B. And of course they regulated commerce between nations.
 
TurtleDude said:
we were that before the FDR nonsense too
Click to expand...

yeah no. were not the country we are today before FDR. its one of the reasons that the Great Depression was such a hardship.. and now.. we consider the last recession a "great recession". Yep.. FDR pushed the boundaries and over stepped the commerce clause. But not in everything. and quite frankly.. trying to deny all the improvements in this country in infrastructure etc.. that occurred under FDR.. because you don't like the Wickard decision or FDR on guns.. well.. its not a very valid position.
 
CriticalThought said:
1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

The fallacy you are presenting here is included in your own argument. The GOP took away the mandate that the Obama administration argued was a tax after they sold the ACA to the public by promising that it would not raise anybody's taxes. But let's set Obama's et al betrayal aside for a bit. SCOTUS said the tax was legal because the Congress has the authority to levy taxes as it sees fit.

Removing the mandate, therefore removes the TAX. Neither the GOP nor SCOTUS has ever made a ruling on the entire law as being constitutional or unconstitutional so far as I know. There have been arguments that it is unconstitutional for Congress to impose on the people something it is given no constitutional authority to do.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For state militias you are correct. As the 2nd militia act stated "every citizen, so enrolled and notified". It only applied when/if they were conscripted. Link
Click to expand...

It applied when they showed up for the militia.

Sorry but regulations on the manufacturing of items =/= me having to buy a car. Much less a car with those safety features. I could go out and buy a Model T if I wanted to and drive it as it was originally built if I wanted to.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. nice try. Try buying a newly manufactured car. You are buying a whole host of things that are mandated that you purchase. but hey.. if you really want to .. I suggest you go out and buy a Model T and try going cross country and using it as your daily driver.. especially going on an 80 mile an hour highway.

Workplace =/= buying things.
Click to expand...
Sure it does... you workplace has all sorts of OSHA mandated things that your employer was mandated they purchase.

Keep trying
Click to expand...
Okay... their are federal regulations on the way you purchase medications.. which means that you are paying for those things.. for example child proof caps on your medications. to the way they are labeled.

Federal regulations on your boats.. on your four wheelers. On your firearms so that they are safe. the manufacturers in the US have to have purchased all sorts of equipment so that employees are safe and that the regulations are followed...

Example abound.

You're still confusing commerce with trade. The federal government originally only regulated state commerce
Click to expand...
Nope I am not... you are the one confused. I am talking interstate commerce. When I buy a product from a person in another state.. I am doing interstate commerce. That's falls under the purview of the federal government.

When business in another state.. say pollutes ground water than ends up in my cattles water tanks.. that's part of the commerce clause. They are affecting my business.

Sure.. originally.. the federal government was quite weak. The founders initially kept it that way. and then as the country grew.. and we faced rebellions, and another war with Britain.. the founding fathers began to realize that a stronger federal government was necessary and you see things like a push for a standing army.. for a central bank etc.

now.. no doubt.. the commerce clause has been abused at times.. and the supreme court has expanded the commerce clause. The most recent example is Raiche V Gonzales. Which by the way was supported by so called "conservative" justice Scalia.

but Obamacare? Not even close.
 
jaeger19 said:
It applied when they showed up for the militia.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not in their private civilian lives.

jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. nice try. Try buying a newly manufactured car. You are buying a whole host of things that are mandated that you purchase. but hey.. if you really want to .. I suggest you go out and buy a Model T and try going cross country and using it as your daily driver.. especially going on an 80 mile an hour highway.
Click to expand...

And yet I still do not have to buy that car.

jaeger19 said:
Sure it does... you workplace has all sorts of OSHA mandated things that your employer was mandated they purchase.
Click to expand...

Again, running a business =/= me buying anything.

jaeger19 said:
Okay... their are federal regulations on the way you purchase medications.. which means that you are paying for those things.. for example child proof caps on your medications. to the way they are labeled.

Federal regulations on your boats.. on your four wheelers. On your firearms so that they are safe. the manufacturers in the US have to have purchased all sorts of equipment so that employees are safe and that the regulations are followed...

Example abound.
Click to expand...

Again, do not have to buy any of those things.

jaeger19 said:
Nope I am not... you are the one confused. I am talking interstate commerce. When I buy a product from a person in another state.. I am doing interstate commerce. That's falls under the purview of the federal government.
Click to expand...

Do you know the meaning of "originally"?

jaeger19 said:
now.. no doubt.. the commerce clause has been abused at times.. and the supreme court has expanded the commerce clause. The most recent example is Raiche V Gonzales. Which by the way was supported by so called "conservative" justice Scalia.
Click to expand...

Glad you acknowledge that. Because that is exactly the problem.

jaeger19 said:
but Obamacare? Not even close.
Click to expand...

Except that the Justices admitted that the mandate would not succeed under the commerce clause. That is why they tied it to taxes. Despite it being a fine.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Exactly. Not in their private civilian lives.

.
Click to expand...

The militia was their private citizen lives. they were private citizens. That was the idea of the militia.

And yet I still do not have to buy that car.
Click to expand...

So? If you do buy one.. even a model T.. its going to come with all sorts of things that were mandated by the federal government for safety. The newer.. the more stuff. Just a fact.. you are mandated to purchase those things.

Again, running a business =/= me buying anything.
Click to expand...

Bull. Obviously you have never owned a business.. or if you do.. are simply being obtuse.

Again, do not have to buy any of those things
Click to expand...
The minute you buy a pharmaceutical you do.

The minute you purchase just about anything.. you are being forced to purchase all sorts of other features or safeties that are required by the federal government.

I suppose you can claim.. well well well.. I live off the grid.. and produce my own food, wear animal skins or fig leaves from plants I grow my self, only use home remedies .. etc.. but that's just you being purposely obtuse.

Do you know the meaning of "originally"?
Click to expand...
Yep.. you don't seem to.

Glad you acknowledge that. Because that is exactly the problem.
Click to expand...
Not in the case of obamacare. In fact.. part of the problem is that you don't even know what obamacare is. While I have read it.. you obviously don't even know what it is.

Obamacare is way way more than just a mandate to have health insurance.

Except that the Justices admitted that the mandate would not succeed under the commerce clause
Click to expand...
Actually it would. Heck.. justice scalia had already expanded the commerce clause tremendously in Raich v Gonzales. If the government can regulate.. NO TAX.. mind you.. but regulate the growth of marijuana that is legally grown on private property..solely in one state.. and only for the use of that person.. without ever leaving the state.

Certainly it has the power to regulate. and thus mandate healthcare insurance which crosses state lines all the time.

but again.. obamacare is not just a mandate. In fact.. the mandate is a minor part of the totality of obamacare. I'd say an important piece to make sure that people are not mooching off others.. .but whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom