SCOTUS Rules 6 to 3: Mandate is Unconstitutional

[pornstarwannabe]

My prediction. You heard it here first. When I am proved right, I want the Libs to like up, kneal, and kiss the back of my hand.

I won't revisit this thread until June when the SCOTUS publishes its ruling.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So who do you think you're going to get in addition to the obvious five?

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

If the mandate is stuck down it's not terrible. There are several possible plan B's. The primary one would be that folks without insurance via their employer would end up getting fat tax breaks if they purchased it - the young, healthy folks who might otherwise opt out. A few million people would still opt out and that's not so bad.

What sucks is that those who opt out and then get sick/injured still get free health care because hospitals are ethical and don't turn away those in dire need. That's an insane way to run a health care system.

 

[eyer]

It seems to me from all I've read that 5-4 against in toto might be how it's standing now...

...Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts in the majority.

But...

...precedent spanning 70 years has me concerned that Kennedy and Roberts might just honor it instead of the spirit of the Commerce Clause the framers established and the states ratified Constitutionally.

I can even see Scalia going precedent's way...

...what's trully tragically sad, though, is that such a flagrant attack against individual liberty is even being considered at all.

 

[renard_ruse]

If the mandate is stuck down it's not terrible...

Of course, defending basic freedom and Constitutional rights is not terrible.

How can they tell someone they have to buy something just to live in a country? What if we just don't buy it? Will they put us in jail? Its absurd.

I hope its 9-0 to overturn the mandate. Partisan politics shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

[mercury14]

It seems to me from all I've read that 5-4 against in toto might be how it's standing now...

...Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts in the majority.

But...

...precedent spanning 70 years has me concerned that Kennedy and Roberts might just honor it instead of the spirit of the Commerce Clause the framers established and the states ratified Constitutionally.

I can even see Scalia going precedent's way...

...what's trully tragically sad, though, is that such a flagrant attack against individual liberty is even being considered at all.

I agree with you, Scalia has an extensive history of seeing the commerce clause extend the government's reach across the board. He should vote with precedent since it's his own precedent, but he won't. He couldn't wait to have a chance to speak and read off the RNC's talking points verbatim right down to the broccoli argument, so I'm pretty sure his mind was made up ages ago.

 

[mercury14]

Of course, defending basic freedom and Constitutional rights is not terrible.

Lol no, insurance regulation does not equate with basic freedom and rights. If you want to know something about basic freedom look at life in Myanmar.

How can they tell someone they have to buy something just to live in a country? What if we just don't buy it? Will they put us in jail? Its absurd.

They're not. You buy something or pay $. Jail? That old Republican lie was dis-proven long ago, bub.

 

[CHNOPS]

You buy something or pay $. Jail? That old Republican lie was dis-proven long ago, bub.

And if I don't pay the fine?

 

[Byron In Exile]

And if I don't pay the fine?

Jail.

 

[CHNOPS]

Jail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuFOkAL8ihM

 

[Byron In Exile]

And if I don't pay the fine?

Same thing as if you don't pay your taxes: they send you on a Carnival cruise.

 

[renard_ruse]

Lol no, insurance regulation does not equate with basic freedom and rights. If you want to know something about basic freedom look at life in Myanmar.

Telling me I have to buy something just because I'm a citizen of a country obviously is an affront to basic American liberties. Do people in Burma or whatever its called these days have to buy something to live there? Strange comment.

They're not. You buy something or pay $. Jail? That old Republican lie was dis-proven long ago, bub

.

I honestly haven't followed it, and certainly never heard anyone else say they will put people in jail. I just naturally assumed that would possibly be the punishment. So, you're saying the punishment is a fine? According to the Constitution, "life, liberty, or property" are all pretty much the same when its taken without Constitutional justification.

Again, my hope is that basic liberty will not be subjected to partisan politics. Not sure why you bring up partisanship on this.

 

[renard_ruse]

Same thing as if you don't pay your taxes: they send you on a Carnival cruise.

A key difference with income tax, is that you don't HAVE to pay income tax. If you choose not to work or earn income, you don't have to pay anything.

How does a mandate differ from a "head tax" or a "poll tax"? They had riots in Britain when Thatcher tried to bring in a poll tax.

 

[mercury14]

And if I don't pay the fine?

Then you owe money. There's no provision for jail, period.

 

[mercury14]

Telling me I have to buy something just because I'm a citizen of a country obviously is an affront to basic American liberties. Do people in Burma or whatever its called these days have to buy something to live there? Strange comment.

People in Burma live in an oppressive totalitarian regime and feel what lack of freedom is really like. You bitching about insurance regulation being the defining point in the freedom discussion is laughable.

 

[bra_man69]

Then you owe money. There's no provision for jail, period.

Well as long as you owe the government they well still be broke.

 

[mercury14]

Well as long as you owe the government they well still be broke.

Huh??

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

Huh??

You have never heard the saying as long as I owe you,you'll never be broke.

 

[mercury14]

Your haughty presumptuousness is the biggest laugher going.

My prediction is that the individual mandate will be struck down but not the entire law. Although I'm not really following the judicial proceedings.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

Article 1 = Legislative branch

Section 8 = The Congress shall have Power

Paragraph 3 = To regulate Commerce

Clause 2 = among the several States



The framers specifically enumerated - or delegated - this power to Congress to do exactly what it says...

...and nothing else.

Under the Articles of Confederation, individual states' commerce practices were as varied as a Baskin Robbins menu...

...think of it as a house with 13 different rooms, each one using a different temperature setting and some rooms, like the crooks in Rhode Island, setting their temperatures much, much higher - even criminally higher - than any other room.

The specific point was to have one overall authority regulate the temperature of all 13 rooms in order to produce the most efficient - and fair - environment for all; such regulation would not only produce much sought after tranquility at home, but it would also present a much more formidable, united front with which to participate in international commerce.

Simple concept, right?

That's specifically why the wording of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3, Clause 2 is simple, too.

Regulating commerce is a Constitutional charge of Congress...

...mandating commerce is none of their business.

 

[John Doe]

If the mandate goes down the whole thing goes with absent the funding.

Right, because the federal government never spends money it doesn't have.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Then you owe money. There's no provision for jail, period.

You're an idiot.