#1
We first conclude that the Acts Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congresss inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the programs amplified enrollments.
Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congresss power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.
Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congresss enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. Uniqueness is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce. [fn omitted]
The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Acts myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Acts other provisions remain legally operative after the mandates excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.
#5
Note the last paragraph quoted by Beavis. The court is asserting that the Feds can't force us to buy insurance, but the entire rest of the mess is OK by them. I thought previous Supreme Court rulings have said that a specific severability clause was required or, when a section is found unconstitutional, the whole thing gets tossed. Here the court sees something that ain't there.
#6
No doubt the government will appeal this ruling up to the Supreme Court, which can then rule whether implied severability exists. But the bottom line is that without the mandate, the whole thing will go broke on short order, as people go uninsured until an expensive problem appears, at which point they will demand covered treatment.
About Mr. Obama, esq.'s legal expertise: any old grad student can come in as a lecturer. My mother taught graduate level courses even as she was taking her first classes at that level -- the professor sets the curriculum, the lecturer may get to choose what examples he will use to illustrate the principles presented. Or not, as the case may be. ;-)
#8
TW: doesn't work quite that way at law school, or medical school. Lecturers are usually part-time faculty bringing their expertise to the students. It's a convenient rank because it's not tenure track and there are no expectations other than teaching.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/12/2011 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The court is asserting that the Feds can't force us to buy insurance, but the entire rest of the mess is OK by them.
Note that this was a 2-1 decision and the first time a donk judge voted to overturn any part of the law. It may have been the deal the trunk had to settle for to overturn anything. In any case it will be up to the Supremes and in this case they aren't likely to be swayed too heavily by what the lower courts have done given its importance.
An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
They just can't stop themselves seizing more and more power that covers areas that are clearly the function of state and local government. The slippery slope of a 'living, breathing' interpretation of the Constitution and specifically the Commerce Clause [aka the Federalization of every state and local function] continues.
#1
More useful is Jerry Pournelle's formulation, his Iron Law of Bureaucracy: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
This applies to most human organizations, not just the federal government. Certainly the federal gov't is bent on an endless enlargement of its control and of its spending.
#4
Heard about this on farm radio last week, recockulous.
How old does one have to be to get a CDL, and what do you suppose a good chunk of farm workers' age is? Nevermind the paperwork...fix the fence or paperwork. Can't go birth the cow now, gotta fill out form 6987-PMITA in triplicate.
Now if ya got ya tinfoil cowboy hat, the idea is that by taxing dirt, epa precautions for milk spills, fart taxes, extended paperwork and classes, and so forth are to harass the family and small farm/ranch out of the business, because big government loves big business.
#5
"Pay your goddamn bills and stop running up the debt!"
Where was this rant when dipshit Dubya was running up the trillions?...oh yes, with your head in the sand somewhere...Buying shit but not paying for it is an American Tradition since 1981...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/12/2011 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Where was this rant when dipshit Dubya was running up the trillions?
Oh yeah, you are a recent troll here. Dubya was getting fair amount of stick beating here for that one here at the time.
Buying shit but not paying for it is an American Tradition since 1981...
Try since... oh... every administration except Andrew Jackson. FDR really started the modern ball rolling for government overspending and it has only gotten worse since then.
#7
Shakey Steve everyone goes after the president. He is an easy target. I really don't think you watched much of that video or at all. The House and Senate sign off on this that's why I call them Obama's enablers. So it's not just a President. Bush was a team player but some of the other players had other ideas. You compromise with a democrat you lose what your fighting for.
Bush said when you sit in that office you are presented information where you must choose what is best for the country. He made his decisions and it was subject to review. That's my personal take on that subject.
#8
Shakey, one of the reasons the Dhimmicrats got the Congress in 2006 was that conservatives were disgusted by Bush's deficits and stayed home rather than vote.
But Bush's average $300 billion deficits would look pretty good right now compared with Obama's $1600 billion ones, eh?
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/12/2011 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Bush said when you sit in that office you are presented information where you must choose what is best for the country. He made his decisions and it was subject to review. "
Then obviously George W. Bush Jr should crack open a Grade 3 arithmetic and start studying. Ballooning the military budget whilst giving tax cuts to those who don't need it is, I'm sure, covered in there somewhere...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/12/2011 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"But Bush's average $300 billion deficits would look pretty good right now compared with Obama's $1600 billion ones, eh?"
Yep, pretty sad when you're proud of Dubya's annual $300,000,000,000 deficits. And you wonder why the U.S. is teetering on insolvency...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/12/2011 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#11
frankly, I don't give a shit what a Canuck says about our political scene. Especially partisan ones
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/12/2011 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"frankly, I don't give a shit what a Canuck says about our political scene. Especially partisan ones"
Hilarious...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/12/2011 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Shakey, this is a classic liberal ploy. You say "Oh, well, Bush spent a lot of money too." Fact is, in case you haven't studied our system of government here, Congress controls the purse strings. The president can either sign the budget Congress enacts or veto it. If he vetoes it there will be a huge political squabble with the potential that our government will run out of money and become unable to function. So Bush signed off on the budgets that the Democrat controlled Congress enacted. I'm not going to argue about that. I myself said many times on this blog and elsewhere that he should have been screaming bloody murder about it. Bush was not my all time favorite president even though I truly believe he is a far more decent man than Obama ever dreamed of being. I do not believe that he is a communist and I do believe that Obama is. Social Security wasn't Bush's idea. Neither was Medicare, ObamaCare, Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and all the other entitlement programs upon which Democrats have traditionally relied to mollify their constituents. Also, even while fighting two wars, spending then was nowhere near what it is now. It just keeps going up at an alarming rate.
No matter. The point is, Federal spending is out of control and all you have to say is that Bush is a dipshit? C'mon. That's pretty weak, isn't it? How long did it take you to think up that one? Or did you take it from the official list of Democrat Party talking points? Bush has been out of office for going on three years now. The recent debt ceiling debacle can be laid directly at the feet of the Democrats who control the Senate and their President, Barack Obama.
Shakey, you commie dipshit, you don't win squat. You certainly don't win any converts to your twisted, kleptomaniac philosophy on this blog by parroting nonsense like that. Are you following any of this or is it too complicated for you? If you can't do any better than that you might as well go peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
#19
"Shakey, you commie dipshit..." What is this 1968? What, still bitter your son burned his draft card?
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/12/2011 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#20
What is this 1968? What, still bitter your son burned his draft card?
Yeah, you talk about class...
But to answer your question, in 1968 I was still in high school and it was your man, the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who was escalating the war in Vietnam. Come to think of it, old LBJ spent a helluva lot of money and raised our taxes too.
Come, Shakey, as LBJ would say, let us reason together. Tell us why you think our current economic situation is all Bush's fault and no one else's. Don't just hurl invective. You sound like some stupid little school girl. Give us some civil, well reasoned discourse. Are you up for it?
#22
Shakey Steve I could understand your approach easier if you would happen to be from Québec?. Most Canadians I have recent conversation with are very pleasant people.
If was so bad, then why didn't obama fix it, instead of doubling down in merely two years?
I bought my house a few years back, multiple previous owners. Faucet came with a leak, noisy but not too bad. Over the last couple of years the leak worsened to the point that not only was it noisy but adds noticably to my water bill.
Is that story true, partially. I fixed the leak and didn't get mad at the previous owner because when I chose this house, I chose it as is. Obama has not only let the leak get worse, he blames the previous owner, bitches about the cost of water, and can't wait for his kids to grow up so they can fix the leak.
Obama chose to run for president, if he didn't at least have an idea of the challenge ahead then he should not have ran. If he did, calling Bush a poopy pants who ruined his birthday party is an absurd sales pitch. Calling Bush a dumby head does you no favors here, as many of us are adults who can pick and choose what we do and do not like about people and choices. For instance, there are things I do like about Obama, such as his bowling score, and his vision to add 7 more states to the union. Oh, and his fabulous taste for food and entertainment. Wagyu beef, no way I can afford that stuff, so jealous!
#26
"I fixed the leak and didn't get mad at the previous owner because when I chose this house, I chose it as is. Obama has not only let the leak get worse, he blames the previous owner, bitches about the cost of water, and can't wait for his kids to grow up so they can fix the leak."
Bambi in a nutshell, swksvolFF. Bravo!
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/12/2011 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Shakey Steve Hello again. Then you understand why I asked that question. You know how difficult things have been and it's tiptoed around even now. You are coming across very much the same way as those of Quebec. This reminds me of Charles De Gaulle in his later years. This is one of his quotes "You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination. " So we have heard this sort of thing before it is not original. Then he took a shot at Canada " Vive le Québec libre!". Listen here as it is a diverse group with many from around the world. Then contribute in a charitable sense of the word.
#28
Yep, pretty sad when you're proud of Dubya's annual $300,000,000,000 deficits.
No, not happy about them at all. But as I'm sure you've heard once or twice in your life, two wrongs don't make a right.
And you wonder why the U.S. is teetering on insolvency...
I don't wonder a bit.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/12/2011 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Can't we get any good trolls? While certain unnamed parties may have been incessantly annoying, at least they could mount a coherent argument. If I wanted to hear this sort of commentary, I would turn on CNN.
#30
$300,000,000,000 deficits are sustainable as a fixed portion of GDP when the US economy grows by over 2%. $1,500,000,000,000 deficits are not sustainable unless the US economy grows by more than 10%. Which is more likely? Under Obama's Marxist economic redistribution, are either scenarios likely?
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/12/2011 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#32
"$300,000,000,000 deficits are sustainable as a fixed portion of GDP when the US economy grows by over 2%. $1,500,000,000,000 deficits are not sustainable unless the US economy grows by more than 10%. Which is more likely? Under Obama's Marxist economic redistribution, are either scenarios likely?" So are you equating the United States with North Korea, economically speaking? Get real...I think I have confidence in the US political system than you do...
Posted by: Shakey Steve ||
08/12/2011 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#33
At the moment we aren't growing much, Shakey Steve. The profitable companies are hoarding cash, waiting to see what else our president is going to hit them with. Assuming he isn't reelected, things should get better, but 10% growth year on year is the kind of thing one sees from Third World countries heading toward First World status, not those already there. I found this graph on the subject for you to play with.
#34
Most boring troll ever. Blends into the wallpaper. At least Justice tends to take a big dump on the coffee table. Rather like a cat, who's upset you went away for the weekend. Kind of nice to know how much he needs us.
#35
So are you equating the United States with North Korea, economically speaking?
This is exactly the kind of thing people are complaining about. Tossing out a blizzard of straw men and non sequiturs works great in a dorm room debate where you can try to snow your opponents with BS, but you need to bring a better game to get any respect here. Or better snark. Just try and focus!
#37
O my, jihad? I didn't realize, TW. I thought it was just da'wa (I think that's arabic for "cat poop"). His English is so bad, though, the confusion is understandable. What do you suppose this Canadian is waging? They don't have jihad up there, do they?
#40
Basic math should not be above anyone's heads here on this board, Steve.
For every dollar that is in the government, there is a dollar missing from the economic system of the US. The government does not create jobs, they do not spur true economic activity. Government NEVER provides revenue.
At some point, you must stop justifying the governments manipulation of markets as that trend is untenable.
It is time to grow up and start defending your own personal and individual rights and economy over this government you worship.
Barak Peron and his government fixes all attitude will bury US all.
Government is a false economy funded only by tax money. The business the government sponsors is not rational nor profitable almost always. All the false economies this government has set up should be allowed to fail and fail completely in order to clean the bezzle out of the system.
I watched you for awhile, Steve and see the same arguments over and again. Government is funded by business. Government is the antithesis to business. and business is the only thing that really feeds people. You must learn where the money comes from.
The people here on Rantburg are very far from stupid. They have mapped out their positions in a very solid and rational manner.
What is fundamentally different between what you post here and what you post at the democratic underground or moveon.org?
Please tell me you have your own panache and a new take from all of the others we have watched through the years attacking the economic engine we need so dearly.
#41
JUSTICE has been reduced to a small perl script.
How humiliating...especially as it's only a small one. Well done, our side!
RandomJD, anyone who goes on about my armpit hair as Justce did at one point is not engaging in the seduction of da'wa. :-(. Shakey Steve only recently found us, following links for the excitements in England, I think. He is a grad student up north -- math and physics -- and arrived with false assumptions about his Konversationpartneren. He is learning, and I have hopes for him, as I always do.
#44
How humiliating...especially as it's only a small one.
Heh!
I missed the armpit hair thing. But, if I may pick a nit, I'd suggest that such attempts to verbally harass infidels are intended to intimidate and create pressure to convert (or "revert," whatever), which is arguably within the scope of da'wa.
As for the Canadian noob waging stupid, the math and physics is a good sign. He ought to grasp that reality has a way of catching up and clobbering everyone in the head, even those who refuse to believe it.
A nit in my armpit hair?! Ick! ;-) That was before you discovered us, I think. Ugliness of the mind due to a Saudi upbringing. I'll yield to you on the varieties of seductive argument -- your experience being so much broader than mine.
#46
Sorry to juxtapose those two entirely unrelated concepts!
Naw, I've been lurking since 2003 or so, from various locations. I just don't have much time to be social, and I don't usually have much to add.
As for varieties of argument, seductive or otherwise - nonsense. I've watched you rhetorically kick people in the balls, and they don't even realize it. Subtle, deft, hysterically funny. Rantburg's secret weapon. :)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the individual mandate in President Obama's health care law is unconstitutional.
