3 ms·

Ordering people to pay money to a government approved set of corporations is not regulating healthcare it's regulating the people and undermining property right

Ordering people to pay money to a government approved set of corporations is not regulating healthcare it's regulating the people and undermining property rights. What's next? A selected group of 'food providers' that you have to pay because the government decides that they provide a better diet than people would choose from the free market?

jbooth 13y ago
It's not new. You've got mandatory flood insurance from a selected group of companies, mandatory osha safety training from a selected group of companies, mandated accounting procedures that must be certified by selected people... If you disagree with the law on principle, that's fine, it's certainly not a perfect solution. But those are political objections. Based on how the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted for a wide variety of issues, it's not unconstitutional (for most working definitions of constitutional). That's why Pelosi laughed and moved on to the next question.
- embolism 13y ago
  This is a good argument for the constitution meaning essentially nothing since if there are no limits on how the government can control how people spend their money, there are no real limits on how much control the government can exert over the individual. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your point isn't really about what is or is not constitutional, but rather that interpretation has rendered the constitution meaningless so anything is constitutional now. Perhaps this is why Pelosi laughed at the idea of something being unconstitutional.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your point isn't really about what is or is not constitutional, but rather that interpretation has rendered the constitution meaningless so anything is constitutional now. Except that that's clearly not the case, as plenty of things remain prohibit by the Constitution, as we see the Supreme Court finding as recently as today [1]. Sure, the interstate commerce power is generally interpreted in a fairly broad manner today, but that is very different than "anything is constitutional now". [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9540_8m58.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9540_8m58.pdf
    - embolism 13y ago
      Presumably that set of opinions is meant to make the point that the Supreme Court is still ruling things unconstitutional and therefore some things are still unconstitutional. This is true, but irrelevant. The point is that if anything can be ruled constitutional, then the ruling something unconstitutional is merely a tool for the federal government to use to regulate the states and lesser courts, not any kind of protection against the power of the federal government itself against the rights of the individual.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The point is that if anything can be ruled constitutional The Constituton isn't magic. No matter what it says, courts applying it have always been able to rule anything constitutional (or, conversely, unconstitutional.) Like any set of rules for human behavior, it is not self enforcing. The Constitution has never, from day one, been a protection against the power of the federal government, it is at most a warning about what the public intends to limit the federal government to, and it has force exactly to the extent that the public is willing to follow up on that warning.
        embolism 13y ago
        Absolutely agreed. And since the public can't follow up, it no longer can limit the federal government.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        The public absolutely can follow up. If the public chooses not to, because its not important relative to other priorities, then, yes, on those points there is no constraint on the federal government.
        embolism 13y ago
        What legal options can the public choose from for this follow up?
dreamdu5t 13y ago
Shhhh.. lest people be reminded that the government's claim to power is arbitrary.

jbooth 13y ago

It's not new. You've got mandatory flood insurance from a selected group of companies, mandatory osha safety training from a selected group of companies, mandated accounting procedures that must be certified by selected people... If you disagree with the law on principle, that's fine, it's certainly not a perfect solution. But those are political objections. Based on how the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted for a wide variety of issues, it's not unconstitutional (for most working definitions of constitutional). That's why Pelosi laughed and moved on to the next question.

embolism 13y ago
This is a good argument for the constitution meaning essentially nothing since if there are no limits on how the government can control how people spend their money, there are no real limits on how much control the government can exert over the individual. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your point isn't really about what is or is not constitutional, but rather that interpretation has rendered the constitution meaningless so anything is constitutional now. Perhaps this is why Pelosi laughed at the idea of something being unconstitutional.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your point isn't really about what is or is not constitutional, but rather that interpretation has rendered the constitution meaningless so anything is constitutional now. Except that that's clearly not the case, as plenty of things remain prohibit by the Constitution, as we see the Supreme Court finding as recently as today [1]. Sure, the interstate commerce power is generally interpreted in a fairly broad manner today, but that is very different than "anything is constitutional now". [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9540_8m58.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9540_8m58.pdf
  - embolism 13y ago
    Presumably that set of opinions is meant to make the point that the Supreme Court is still ruling things unconstitutional and therefore some things are still unconstitutional. This is true, but irrelevant. The point is that if anything can be ruled constitutional, then the ruling something unconstitutional is merely a tool for the federal government to use to regulate the states and lesser courts, not any kind of protection against the power of the federal government itself against the rights of the individual.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > The point is that if anything can be ruled constitutional The Constituton isn't magic. No matter what it says, courts applying it have always been able to rule anything constitutional (or, conversely, unconstitutional.) Like any set of rules for human behavior, it is not self enforcing. The Constitution has never, from day one, been a protection against the power of the federal government, it is at most a warning about what the public intends to limit the federal government to, and it has force exactly to the extent that the public is willing to follow up on that warning.
      - embolism 13y ago
        Absolutely agreed. And since the public can't follow up, it no longer can limit the federal government.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        The public absolutely can follow up. If the public chooses not to, because its not important relative to other priorities, then, yes, on those points there is no constraint on the federal government.
        embolism 13y ago
        What legal options can the public choose from for this follow up?

dreamdu5t 13y ago

Shhhh.. lest people be reminded that the government's claim to power is arbitrary.