liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, I'm really curious to know what, in your opinion, is the good argument for regulation under the commerce clause?

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

But we all know that the uninsured place a large burden on the entire health care system nationally.

So there's really no such thing as inactivity.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but I believe is at the core of the Administration's case, at least in respect to the commerce clause. And to me it does make perfect sense.

That's not to say the entire legislation is perfect. I think there are many other measures regarding tort reform and competition that could also help reduce costs.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

-spence

a repeating theme when the two of you engage is that one argues specifically for or against something and the other is constantly proposing muddled arguments around something...usually the Constitution

what has been specifically said is:

In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity."

In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering that:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."

love to know how an individual choosing not to purchase health insurance has been documented to impact interstate commerce...

to argue for Obamacare Spence, you have to argue around the founding documents, you have to argue that creating an enormous Federal Bureaucracy with unlimited power vested in individuals through government and over individuals somehow fits nicely into the original plan of "inalienable" individual rights and government limitations....you are also setting a precedent for future expansion that will really be unlimited, you cannot argue for this and then down the road complain about expansion in areas that you might disagree with, by individuals with agendas that you might disagree with and claim that the government may not mandate and fine you for non-compliance because you're now granting them broad authority over the individual....which really contradicts that intent at our founding......

you were right about something..in this instance..we don't get a do-over

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

what has been specifically said is:

In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity."

This shows how far from the original language and meaning of the Constitution the Court has strayed. The plain language "commerce" as used at the time of ratification meant "trade and exchange of goods." That Hudson had to argue about "economic inactivity" rather than directly stating that when no purchase is made, there is no exchange, therefore there is no commerce, shows how convoluted arguments must now be to satisfy current "interpretation."

In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering that:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, translate: I choose not to buy your product (no exchange, no commerce) Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Naw, I got my own reasons which are different than my neighbor's reason, and why should you be telling me that the government can force me to buy it now or ever?

Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."

Whether such documents exist or not, is irrelevant to the Constitution (as originally written). The Congressional power therein granted was to regulate COMMERCE not to regulate anything other than actual commerce which might in some way affect commerce, and that commerce was to be made regular among the States, INTERSTATE, and the regulation was only to make freer, more functional and regular, the existing commerce created by the People not to prohibit commerce nor to demand it or create it.

love to know how an individual choosing not to purchase health insurance has been documented to impact interstate commerce...

Whatever and if such documents exists, they have to apply to what was formally referred to as the Interstate Commerce Clause but is now simply called the Commerce Clause. This new Commerce Clause was given birth in the FDR Court which firstly expanded "Commerce" to include agriculture and manufacture and production. The narrow meaning of commerce the founders used did not include these items, but only referred to trade and exchange of goods. Aghriculture and manufacture were always referred to by the framers as separate from commerce--the goods produced from agriculture and manufacture only became commerce when they were exchanged on the market. Thus, commerce was expanded to be more than the actual trade and exchange, but that which had an affect or could lead to such exchange. Then, in WICKARD, it was determined also that anything or action that could lead to lowering of the price of goods could also be considered to affect commerce--Even if there was no sale or cross-border activity. This, virtually, redefined the meaning of to regulate commerce among the several States to be any and all things that might have some affect on the market/economy, which means just about anything or action we do or take regardless of whether or not it occurs within State or across borders. This, virtually, gives Congress the power to regulate almost all of our activity.

to argue for Obamacare Spence, you have to argue around the founding documents, you have to argue that creating an enormous Federal Bureaucracy with unlimited power vested in individuals through government and over individuals somehow fits nicely into the original plan of "inalienable" individual rights and government limitations....you are also setting a precedent for future expansion that will really be unlimited, you cannot argue for this and then down the road complain about expansion in areas that you might disagree with, by individuals with agendas that you might disagree with and claim that the government may not mandate and fine you for non-compliance because you're now granting them broad authority over the individual....which really contradicts that intent at our founding......

you were right about something..in this instance..we don't get a do-over

Progressives know full well and admit that they intend to contradict the intent of the founders. They believe the founding document is outdated and irrelevant. They realize it would be too difficult, at this time, to formally rewrite the Constitution through a new Con-Con, amending it is too slow as well as too dificult, so they informally rewrite it through progressive jurisprudence redefining the meaning of the words. And, yes, the progressive aim is to give unlimited power to the Central Gvt. bureacracy. And this authority over the individual is for his own benefit. That you express concern that future administrations might not be as benevolent to the People as current progressives claim to be, is unwarranted. We have arrived at a point in history when the People and the administrators understand the necessity of fairness and equality. Our educational institutions teach and profess this as the true and necessary mission of our lives. The "individual" cannot stand out as separate from the community if we are to achieve total fairness and equality. And the community expresses itself in the benevolent State. The community, the State, and the individual are part of one and the same living, breathing, entity. You do not have to fear malevolent future administrations. They are part of the same living organism as is the individual. They are one and the same.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Progressives know full well and admit that they intend to contradict the intent of the founders. They believe the founding document is outdated and irrelevant. They realize it would be too difficult, at this time, to formally rewrite the Constitution through a new Con-Con, amending it is too slow as well as too dificult, so they informally rewrite it through progressive jurisprudence redefining the meaning of the words. And, yes, the progressive aim is to give unlimited power to the Central Gvt. bureacracy. And this authority over the individual is for his own benefit.

There is a bothersome component to the idealogical thinking on the left that is reflected in their elected officials, pundints and among their supporters which is:

"we are smarter than you, we know what's good for you and you are obviously too stupid(insert various pejoratives) to "get it"...and since you don't "get it" we are obligated to make you "get it"....

I'd look for some serious domestic unrest over the next year...it's already starting