Skip to comments.Congressional Report Casts Doubt on Constitutionality of Obamacare's Individual Mandate
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 laws] requirement to obtain health insurance, the first question is the congressional authority for this requirement based on Congresss enumerated powers. While there is no specific enumerated power to regulate health care or establish an individual responsibility requirement, one can look to Congresss other broad enumerated powers which have been used to justify social programs in the past, the report states.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
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).
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.
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.
Eliana Kagen has to recuse herself from this, Kennedy will be the decider.
An honest mentally challenged person can tell you that it is unconstitutional.
How can the Commerce Clause be applied when you cannot purchase insurance across state lines ???
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
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.
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 taxpayers household income.
This is the first I'd heard of the fact that the Obamacare penalty can VARY based on your HOUSEHOLD INCOME.
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.
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.
If you want to use the kid for a tax deduction, he has to have a SSN.
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
After Gonzales v. Raich
What was that?
I know I can look it up but I bet you can explain it better.
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