Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congressional Report Casts Doubt on Constitutionality of Obamacare's Individual Mandate
CNSNEW.com ^ | 10/26/10 | Matt Cover

Posted on 10/26/2010 1:05:24 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks

A report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) casts doubt on the two main arguments used by the Obama administration to defend the individual insurance mandate that is the central component of the controversial health “reform” law.

Published on October 15, the CRS report examines the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which requires every American to purchase government-approved health insurance or else pay a fine.

The mandate, to be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, has been challenged as an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority in a lawsuit filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

The CRS report finds that the two primary defenses of the mandate – that it is a tax and that Congress can impose it under the Commerce Clause – to be problematic.

“In analyzing the constitutionality of [the health care law’s] requirement to obtain health insurance, the first question is the congressional authority for this requirement based on Congress’s enumerated powers. While there is no specific enumerated power to regulate health care or establish an individual responsibility requirement, one can look to Congress’s other broad enumerated powers which have been used to justify social programs in the past,” the report states.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; cuccinelli; marxistcoup; obamacare
http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/Requiring%20Individuals%20to%20Obtain%20Health%20Insurance%20-%20A%20Constitutional%20Analysis.pdf
1 posted on 10/26/2010 1:05:29 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

ping


2 posted on 10/26/2010 1:05:53 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (Proud Anti-Establishment Extremist. No more 0bama Republicans! (Palin/Cheney 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Obama is an Islamo-Marxist-Chicago Gangster. He does as he pleases.
3 posted on 10/26/2010 1:09:12 PM PDT by Armaggedon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I have little faith in the cowards in the Supreme Court to stop this. They have been rubberstamping all Commerce Clause arguments since FDR (a switch in time saves 9).


4 posted on 10/26/2010 1:15:45 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
For the record:

I will not comply with this stupid law. Period.

I will not pay any fine for not complying with this stupid law.

If they attempt to jail me, I will resist.

L

5 posted on 10/26/2010 1:18:20 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Bottom line is if the government can force you by threat of law to buy one private product, it can force you to buy anything. Because they can just deem it part of their powers to do so. They can claim it’s for national security, the ‘general welfare’ or yourself, etc.

This also destroys thousands of years of contract law (namely, that in contracts where one party is coerced/under duress to be part of the contract, those contracts are legally declared null and void).

Some may say this is like social security. It’s still voluntary. You have to sign up. You don’t have to sign up, parents, you don’t have to leave the hospital with a SSN even though they try to tell you you have to have one. Your kid does not have to have one.


6 posted on 10/26/2010 1:19:15 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Eliana Kagen has to recuse herself from this, Kennedy will be the decider.


7 posted on 10/26/2010 1:21:09 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (Proud Anti-Establishment Extremist. No more 0bama Republicans! (Palin/Cheney 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

An honest mentally challenged person can tell you that it is unconstitutional.


8 posted on 10/26/2010 1:26:03 PM PDT by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

How can the Commerce Clause be applied when you cannot purchase insurance across state lines ???

BOGUS !!!


9 posted on 10/26/2010 1:27:11 PM PDT by Lmo56 (</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood

I agree that the Supremes have in the past seemed to rubber stamp issues like this but the ideology gap between obama/ leftist and Roberts etc is pretty wide. Roberts is a strict constitutionalist. He alone can’t decide it but he is eloquent and persuasive.
The 2 pigs, kagan and sotomeyor are predictable. We only need 1 of the others


10 posted on 10/26/2010 1:27:16 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I agree with the issue, which to me seems to be very problematic, of this setting a precedent whereby the government can force you to buy anything. Hoping for (but not optimistic) some wisdom in the court systems to protect us from this health care fiasco and future forced purchases. Sounds like it won’t be long until we are forced to chooe from only the light bulbs, appliances, and plumbing fixtures that the government will allow (much of that already going on, I suppose), but the next step is taht we will be forced to REPLACE our existing appliances and plumbing fixtures with those required by the government.


11 posted on 10/26/2010 1:31:12 PM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

12 posted on 10/26/2010 1:33:23 PM PDT by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, retired Military, disabled & Seniors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Now here's the first nasty tidbit out of this report:

The amount of the assessment for failing to meet the individual responsibility requirement, which can be prorated for partial compliance during the year, is determined by taking the greater of a flat dollar amount and a calculation based on a percentage of the taxpayer’s household income.

This is the first I'd heard of the fact that the Obamacare penalty can VARY based on your HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

Say whaaaaa?

These congresscritters were surely smoking the evidence when they passed this thing. Oh, wait. Excuse me. I forgot they didn't even read it before they passed it.

13 posted on 10/26/2010 1:34:49 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Think about it:

Exemptions would apply to individuals with qualified religious exemptions, members of health care sharing ministries, unauthorized aliens, incarcerated individuals, qualified U.S. citizens and residents living abroad, and bona fide residents of the U.S. possessions. Additionally, no amounts would be assessed on individuals who could not afford coverage;7 taxpayers with income less than the filing threshold; members of Indian tribes; and individuals granted hardship exceptions.

14 posted on 10/26/2010 1:37:58 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
I agree that the Supremes have in the past seemed to rubber stamp issues like this but the ideology gap between obama/ leftist and Roberts etc is pretty wide. Roberts is a strict constitutionalist. He alone can’t decide it but he is eloquent and persuasive.
The 2 pigs, kagan and sotomeyor are predictable. We only need 1 of the others


After Gonzales v. Raich, I am not sure even Scalia is a safe vote. According to Thomas, that decision was the final nail in the 10th Amendment and Scalia supported it so he will probably support this encroachment as well.
15 posted on 10/26/2010 1:41:08 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Some may say this is like social security. It’s still voluntary. You have to sign up. You don’t have to sign up, parents, you don’t have to leave the hospital with a SSN even though they try to tell you you have to have one. Your kid does not have to have one.

If you want to use the kid for a tax deduction, he has to have a SSN.

16 posted on 10/26/2010 1:41:59 PM PDT by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Eliana Kagen has to recuse herself from this, Kennedy will be the decider.

I would not consider Scalia a safe vote. He has turned into a New Deal Commerce Clause guy.
17 posted on 10/26/2010 1:42:41 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
More:

A court analyzing this argument might look to cases where the Supreme Court has examined whether Congress has the authority, independent of its taxing authority, to regulate the underlying subject matter [here, an individual's health insurance choices].

If such regulation is authorized under a provision of the Constitution other than the taxing power, the exaction may be sustained as an appropriate enforcement mechanism.11 But, in the absence of such independent authority, a tax triggered by the failure to comply with federal standards has been held to be invalid.12

18 posted on 10/26/2010 1:42:53 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: microgood

After Gonzales v. Raich
What was that?
I know I can look it up but I bet you can explain it better.
thanks


19 posted on 10/26/2010 1:53:05 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
After Gonzales v. Raich What was that?

That was a Commerce Clause ruling about a lady in chronic pain growing pot in her house and the question was whether the government could charge her with possession even though it was within the state and just a few plants in her house. The ruling was 6-3 wherein Scalia snd the liberals voted against Thomas, O'Connor and Rehnquist.

But Thomas, who is the most loyal to our Constitution said:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

and:

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Basically, that ruling was the final nail in the 10th Amendment and pretty much the end of the American experiment with limited Federal power.
20 posted on 10/26/2010 2:39:39 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Thank you
Even if I had googled it I most likely would not have understood the ruling.

I see what you mean.
We could well be screwed


21 posted on 10/26/2010 3:01:17 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson