Legal Theories on the Health Care bill?

[bigs5068]

It doesn't matter really because they are pushing a bill that is actually titled this is not a joke. The 112th Congress is pushing a bill titled.  Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act H.Res 2. That is unbelievably bad and I voted for Republicans mostly.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2: The actual link to the congressional bill. Astonishing

[NonTradInSATX]

Agreed, but the argument that needs to stop being made by all the politicians/pundits out there (including some lawyers) is the analogy between Car Insurance and Health Insurance.

Although you could force some sort of absurd logic saying that the uninsured cost people in the end, so it's a charge up front instead of getting hit on the back end, you still cant argue that car insurance (intended to cover the OTHER person's costs in an accident) and health insurance (intended to cover YOUR costs) are the same kind of thing.  If this logic has been worked out, I'd love to hear it, but otherwise the analogy is done.  Furthermore, even if the analogy was valid or you dont care to consider the intent, auto insurance is a state requirement, not a federal requirement. 

On the primary topic though, consider the precedent if this is allowed to go on.  50 years from now, the government might mandate that everyone buy an american made car, require every family to own a laptop for every child or otherwise force you to purchase a good or service you dont personally desire to spend money on.  Then you sue the federal government for overreaching, but precedent says that they can force you to purchase anything they can justify as necessary for the greater welfare.

Simply put, the Constitution does not grant under the CC the right to force people to buy things.

Naw, this isn't a 10th Amendment issue.  The bill doesn't attempt to force the states to do anything.  As somebody mentioned above, the individual mandate contained within the bill is a Commerce Clause issue.   In addition to being a Commerce Clause issue, it is also a Taxing & Spending Clause issue, which is likely where the mandate will pass Constitutional scrutiny.

With respect to the Commerce Clause issue, it is difficult to say whether the Supreme Court will add this bill to the very short list of congressional acts that have been ruled as overstepping the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause (see U.S. v. Lopez) or whether the Court will find that this is yet another permissible regulation of interstate commerce in a long history of permissible regulations of interstate commerce going all the way back to the nation's founding.  The Court rarely slaps Congress on the wrist on Commerce Clause grounds but you never know, this could be one of those rare moments. 

If it's a 5-4 vote and the swing vote comes down to Justice Kennedy (which seems to be the Court's m.o. lately) then it's notable to observe that J. Kennedy tends to come down on the side of Justices who believe that Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause (see Gonzales v. Raich).  So it's likely that the health care bill will be upheld as Constitutional.

However, there are certainly good arguments on both sides of this debate.

The 10th Amendment came up in the New York v. United States case where the court said that you could not tell the State how to spend resources regarding nuclear waste disposal. The same thing happened in Printz v. United States where the Fed could not force local police to enforce the Brady Bill. There were some other cases that I can't find that said the 10th amendment does not really mean anything though and it seems up in the air. I am not real sure how the health bill works, but I was under the impression it required states to direct resources towards the bill without a choice. 

I could definitely see a commerce clause argument come up. I agree with Hamilton on that it should be given a bit more clarity although it is a great way for Con Law Professors to give Exams .

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play. 

Whether or not you actually buy the health insurance is up to you, but just like Medicare, Social Security, and FICA, the Federal government has the undisputed authority to Tax the people, regardless of whether you personally benefit from the proceeds of a particular Tax initiative or not. 

In other words, the Health Care "mandate" is not truly a "mandate" in the sense that the Draft was a mandate.  It's not literally forcing you to do anything.  If you don't buy health insurance, nothing happens to you, nobody comes to arrest you, nobody finds you in contempt of court, etc.  Now, of course, you can argue that the tax "punishes" those who freely choose not to buy health insurance, but it is difficult to see how characterizing an enumerated constitutional power of the federal government (ie. the power to  Tax) as a "punishment" will win the day in court.  I'm not saying it's impossible to make that argument, but it is a long shot.

Bottom line, even if the so-called "mandate" were to be found unconstitutional, then the most that would happen is that the mandate provision within the Health Care Act would be wiped off the books.  The Health Care Act itself would still remain.  So I think a lot of this talk about repealing the law is more fiction than fact.

Agreed, but the argument that needs to stop being made by all the politicians/pundits out there (including some lawyers) is the analogy between Car Insurance and Health Insurance.

Although you could force some sort of absurd logic saying that the uninsured cost people in the end, so it's a charge up front instead of getting hit on the back end, you still cant argue that car insurance (intended to cover the OTHER person's costs in an accident) and health insurance (intended to cover YOUR costs) are the same kind of thing.  If this logic has been worked out, I'd love to hear it, but otherwise the analogy is done.  Furthermore, even if the analogy was valid or you dont care to consider the intent, auto insurance is a state requirement, not a federal requirement. 

On the primary topic though, consider the precedent if this is allowed to go on.  50 years from now, the government might mandate that everyone buy an american made car, require every family to own a laptop for every child or otherwise force you to purchase a good or service you dont personally desire to spend money on.  Then you sue the federal government for overreaching, but precedent says that they can force you to purchase anything they can justify as necessary for the greater welfare.

Simply put, the Constitution does not grant under the CC the right to force people to buy things.

Naw, this isn't a 10th Amendment issue.  The bill doesn't attempt to force the states to do anything.  As somebody mentioned above, the individual mandate contained within the bill is a Commerce Clause issue.   In addition to being a Commerce Clause issue, it is also a Taxing & Spending Clause issue, which is likely where the mandate will pass Constitutional scrutiny.

With respect to the Commerce Clause issue, it is difficult to say whether the Supreme Court will add this bill to the very short list of congressional acts that have been ruled as overstepping the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause (see U.S. v. Lopez) or whether the Court will find that this is yet another permissible regulation of interstate commerce in a long history of permissible regulations of interstate commerce going all the way back to the nation's founding.  The Court rarely slaps Congress on the wrist on Commerce Clause grounds but you never know, this could be one of those rare moments. 

If it's a 5-4 vote and the swing vote comes down to Justice Kennedy (which seems to be the Court's m.o. lately) then it's notable to observe that J. Kennedy tends to come down on the side of Justices who believe that Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause (see Gonzales v. Raich).  So it's likely that the health care bill will be upheld as Constitutional.

However, there are certainly good arguments on both sides of this debate.

The 10th Amendment came up in the New York v. United States case where the court said that you could not tell the State how to spend resources regarding nuclear waste disposal. The same thing happened in Printz v. United States where the Fed could not force local police to enforce the Brady Bill. There were some other cases that I can't find that said the 10th amendment does not really mean anything though and it seems up in the air. I am not real sure how the health bill works, but I was under the impression it required states to direct resources towards the bill without a choice. 

I could definitely see a commerce clause argument come up. I agree with Hamilton on that it should be given a bit more clarity although it is a great way for Con Law Professors to give Exams .

[NonTradInSATX]

Fair enough, so we'll go with a different analogy then.  If this is a Tax levied only when a citizen chooses NOT to do something, lets extend that logic out.

What if the government were then to decide that they could tax anyone that doesn't exercise regularly?  Or that by choosing NOT to buy a car, I would be fined/taxed a fee to help subsidize those that do?  Where does the ability to control your life end if they can tax inaction?

My argument would be that taxes can only be levied on money/goods/actions, not on inaction.  How can taxing for NOT taking an action be anything other than a punishment?

But perhaps a 0L is overstepping his own enumerated powers in attempting legal analysis on such a divisive topic.   

Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play. 

Whether or not you actually buy the health insurance is up to you, but just like Medicare, Social Security, and FICA, the Federal government has the undisputed authority to Tax the people, regardless of whether you personally benefit from the proceeds of a particular Tax initiative or not. 

In other words, the Health Care "mandate" is not truly a "mandate" in the sense that the Draft was a mandate.  It's not literally forcing you to do anything.  If you don't buy health insurance, nothing happens to you, nobody comes to arrest you, nobody finds you in contempt of court, etc.  Now, of course, you can argue that the tax "punishes" those who freely choose not to buy health insurance, but it is difficult to see how characterizing an enumerated constitutional power of the federal government (ie. the power to  Tax) as a "punishment" will win the day in court.  I'm not saying it's impossible to make that argument, but it is a long shot.

Bottom line, even if the so-called "mandate" were to be found unconstitutional, then the most that would happen is that the mandate provision within the Health Care Act would be wiped off the books.  The Health Care Act itself would still remain.  So I think a lot of this talk about repealing the law is more fiction than fact.

Agreed, but the argument that needs to stop being made by all the politicians/pundits out there (including some lawyers) is the analogy between Car Insurance and Health Insurance.

Although you could force some sort of absurd logic saying that the uninsured cost people in the end, so it's a charge up front instead of getting hit on the back end, you still cant argue that car insurance (intended to cover the OTHER person's costs in an accident) and health insurance (intended to cover YOUR costs) are the same kind of thing.  If this logic has been worked out, I'd love to hear it, but otherwise the analogy is done.  Furthermore, even if the analogy was valid or you dont care to consider the intent, auto insurance is a state requirement, not a federal requirement. 

On the primary topic though, consider the precedent if this is allowed to go on.  50 years from now, the government might mandate that everyone buy an american made car, require every family to own a laptop for every child or otherwise force you to purchase a good or service you dont personally desire to spend money on.  Then you sue the federal government for overreaching, but precedent says that they can force you to purchase anything they can justify as necessary for the greater welfare.

Simply put, the Constitution does not grant under the CC the right to force people to buy things.

[Hamilton]

The auto insurance/health insurance is a bad analogy.  The requirement for auto insurance comes from the STATE as a provision to owning a car, getting it licensed by the state, and driving it in the state.  Its not a federal mandate for everyone, regardless of whether they choose to own a car and drive it.

Apparently when campaigning in 2008, President Obama stated he was not in favor of individual mandate as that was just like the Fed solving the homelss problem by requiring everyone to own a home.  Judge cited this in his opinion today.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Agreed.  The Auto Insurance/health insurance is a bad analogy for the reasons you stated.

The auto insurance/health insurance is a bad analogy.  The requirement for auto insurance comes from the STATE as a provision to owning a car, getting it licensed by the state, and driving it in the state.  Its not a federal mandate for everyone, regardless of whether they choose to own a car and drive it.

[Hamilton]

Yes - but the judge, and others, have rightfully called bull$h*t on labeling this as a "tax."  At first the administration said it was not a tax, but then when they learned they needed it to be a tax, they called it one.

Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play. 

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

For a 0L, you're doing a good job at asking the right questions.  When is the government overstepping?  Where is the line drawn?  Those are the right questsions to ask and, coincidentally, the questions that the Supreme Court was created to answer.

As far as regulating inaction, there's actually some support for this proposition if we go back to the Commerce Clause. See the landmark Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.  It basically says that even if you're not literally engaging in interstate commerce, if your inaction, in the aggregate, has an effect on interstate commerce then the government is still within its right to regulate your "inactivity" because you are still effecting interstate commerce.

Here, the argument is that the inaction of millions of Americans in the aggregate is having an a effect on interstate commerce b/c it's driving up health insurance coverage. 

That being said, the Commerce Clause may not be the best way to argue this thing b/c Wickard did not go as far as taxing the farmer in that case for literally taking no action whatsoever.   They taxed him, rather, because his intra-state action was causing an effect on interstate commerce. Thus, the Tax & Spend clause is likely where the Health Care law will find its most support because whether we call it a "punishment" or not, the government still has the undisputed power to Tax.

Fair enough, so we'll go with a different analogy then.  If this is a Tax levied only when a citizen chooses NOT to do something, lets extend that logic out.

What if the government were then to decide that they could tax anyone that doesn't exercise regularly?  Or that by choosing NOT to buy a car, I would be fined/taxed a fee to help subsidize those that do?  Where does the ability to control your life end if they can tax inaction?

My argument would be that taxes can only be levied on money/goods/actions, not on inaction.  How can taxing for NOT taking an action be anything other than a punishment?

But perhaps a 0L is overstepping his own enumerated powers in attempting legal analysis on such a divisive topic.   

Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play. 

Whether or not you actually buy the health insurance is up to you, but just like Medicare, Social Security, and FICA, the Federal government has the undisputed authority to Tax the people, regardless of whether you personally benefit from the proceeds of a particular Tax initiative or not. 

In other words, the Health Care "mandate" is not truly a "mandate" in the sense that the Draft was a mandate.  It's not literally forcing you to do anything.  If you don't buy health insurance, nothing happens to you, nobody comes to arrest you, nobody finds you in contempt of court, etc.  Now, of course, you can argue that the tax "punishes" those who freely choose not to buy health insurance, but it is difficult to see how characterizing an enumerated constitutional power of the federal government (ie. the power to  Tax) as a "punishment" will win the day in court.  I'm not saying it's impossible to make that argument, but it is a long shot.

Bottom line, even if the so-called "mandate" were to be found unconstitutional, then the most that would happen is that the mandate provision within the Health Care Act would be wiped off the books.  The Health Care Act itself would still remain.  So I think a lot of this talk about repealing the law is more fiction than fact.

Agreed, but the argument that needs to stop being made by all the politicians/pundits out there (including some lawyers) is the analogy between Car Insurance and Health Insurance.

Although you could force some sort of absurd logic saying that the uninsured cost people in the end, so it's a charge up front instead of getting hit on the back end, you still cant argue that car insurance (intended to cover the OTHER person's costs in an accident) and health insurance (intended to cover YOUR costs) are the same kind of thing.  If this logic has been worked out, I'd love to hear it, but otherwise the analogy is done.  Furthermore, even if the analogy was valid or you dont care to consider the intent, auto insurance is a state requirement, not a federal requirement. 

On the primary topic though, consider the precedent if this is allowed to go on.  50 years from now, the government might mandate that everyone buy an american made car, require every family to own a laptop for every child or otherwise force you to purchase a good or service you dont personally desire to spend money on.  Then you sue the federal government for overreaching, but precedent says that they can force you to purchase anything they can justify as necessary for the greater welfare.

Simply put, the Constitution does not grant under the CC the right to force people to buy things.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Yeah but you're placing too much focus on the administration.  It doesn't matter what the Executive branch calls it or doesn't call it.  At the end of the day, whether it will be constitutional or not depends on how the Legislative branch drafted it.

Yes - but the judge, and others, have rightfully called bull$h*t on labeling this as a "tax."  At first the administration said it was not a tax, but then when they learned they needed it to be a tax, they called it one.

Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play. 

[Hamilton]

You are absolutely right.  Call it a tax, call it a fine, call it a duck... the court will look at it and decide what it IS.

Yeah but you're placing too much focus on the administration.  It doesn't matter what the Executive branch calls it or doesn't call it.  At the end of the day, whether it will be constitutional or not depends on how the Legislative branch drafted it.

Yes - but the judge, and others, have rightfully called bull$h*t on labeling this as a "tax."  At first the administration said it was not a tax, but then when they learned they needed it to be a tax, they called it one.

Right, it would be hard for anybody to argue that the Commerce Clause can require the people to buy something, but that's not exactly the issue in front of us.  The question presented here, rather, is whether the Federal government can create a tax for people who don't have health insurance.  This is where the Tax & Spend Clause will likely come into play.