No, but they always fall back on the Commerce Clause as their reason for everything......
The only way to argue that it’s constitutional is to pretend it’s a tax. Even the Obama Administration admitted it wasn’t a tax, no matter what Roberts twisted the words to claim. The whole thing needs to be tossed out as unconstitutional, or tossed out as a harmful law, or just tossed out with an entire government that no longer listens to the people (except for the NSA, which is always listening!).
I agree, but it’s water under the bridge. There are a ton of things the federal government does that aren’t delegated powers.
“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
—Heritage Foundation
Everything is whatever they say it is. The law is now subject to interpretation. Doesn’t make you wrong. Its more like heads i win tails you lose.
No, you are correct.
The most insidious part of Obamacare is the power gathered to Fedzilla by all the agencies created to facilitate it.
And the control of all medical records.
Repeal means taking power away from Fedzilla, something the Uniparty eunuchs will never do.
We let this start when we allowed for mandatory liability insurance on vehicles.
While a good idea on its face.. not so great in overall application.
Nor in setting precedent.
Which is why one good conservative Supreme Court pick could Repeal FederalCare.
You’re mostly right. The federal government probably has a constitutional role in regulating interstate commerce. This would be a relatively important function if people are allowed to purchase insurance across state lines.
Not at all off base! It’s completely unconstitutional for fedgov to provide health care, order persons to contract with an insurance company, control insurance company products and pricing... on and on and on!
Article V
Roberts was wrong. The whole thing is unconstitutional.
You are correct and it should re-visited by a Constitutionally minded Supreme Court. We don’t really have that now.
The Constitution is a “living document” remember?
It can mean whatever the hell leftist/fascist, social-engineering politicians with nice-sounding slogans says it means
/s
This is why the latest changes to the plan have provisions for States to opt in for.
Trump is not fighting this battle, it seems. He is also not fighting the traditional marriage battle. Conservatives have 2 option — fight Trump or accept Trump. Most here accept Trump’s compromise. Some don’t.
You are right, but just try closing that barn door...
Not going to happen...
“Am I way off base regarding federalized health care or insurance plans being unconstitutional?”
No, you are not off base here!
The American people have been for so long inundated with the Administrative State controlling their lives that they accept any control whatsoever from the federal government as acceptable and legal - even though it may be not.
Federal control over light bulbs.
Federal control over low-flow toilets.
Federal control over lettuce growing.
etc. etc. etc.
None of this is legal jurisdiction for the federal government. And yet they took it!
If the federal government needs to have jurisdiction, then an amendment needs to be passed. The people, the states, the federal government understood this at one time.
Look at prohibition as the best example. For some reason, the people and the states wanted to give the federal government authority and control over alcohol. So they passed an amendment. This gave LEGAL jurisdiction to the federal government. Then the people and states wanted to take back the authority and control over alcohol so another amendment was passed.
If the federal government needs to have authority and control over healthcare. THEN PASS AN AMENDMENT! Illegally taking of the authority and control is TYRANNY!
This is why RomneyCARE in Massachusetts was LEGAL.
This is why ObamaCARE in Federal government is ILLEGAL.
This is why RinoCARE in Federal government is ILLEGAL.
You are right, but that horse is out of the barn.
Not sure how it would be possible to reign in the judiciary short of torches and pitchforks.
So that's the ostensible "justification" for many of these expansive business-related federal power grabs under the Constitution...