New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Five steps to constitutionality of the ACA

Woolleybugger

Woolleybugger

Mayor
First, is it commerce?
Second, is it proper?
Third, is it necessary?
Fourth, does it violate any specific provision of the Constitution?
Fifth, was it passed legally and legitimately?
Sixth...nothing left to discuss.
 
NightSwimmer said:
PPACA?
Click to expand...
Ahh thanks

Woolleybugger said:
First, is it commerce?
Second, is it proper?
Third, is it necessary?
Fourth, does it violate any specific provision of the Constitution?
Fifth, was it passed legally and legitimately?
Sixth...nothing left to discuss.
Click to expand...

Actually Woolley - The Fourth really needs to be split in two:


  1. Does the EXPENDITURE and REGULATORY Framework violate any provisions of The US Constitution? And can it be derived from any Constitutional basis
    .
  2. Does the Funding mechanism derive from a CONSTITUTIONAL Basis

the two are serverable. And in fact the Expenditure Framework Derives from Article 1 Section 8 Para 1 as well as Amendment 14 Section 4 (which your "FIFTH" refers to)
And the Regulatory Framework derives from the ICC clause (which your FIRST refers to)

And the Funding mechanism derives directly from the 16th Amendment. And hence it too is fine. unless of course Tax Breaks for purchasing a mortgage or a Gas well are similarly unconstittional.
 
To be honest, the fourth is really part of "is it proper"...but lets not quibble. This is the argument and the case for or against has to deal with these issues to win.
 
In my opinion (just MY opinion), Obama Justice really messed with the Fox/GOP's heads, by so willingly going along with putting this one in front of The Supreme Court, as quickly as possible.

The GOP knew damn well that the "mandate" would eventually be ruled consitutional. But...they were counting on Obama Justice making every legal manuever they could, do move the decision out as far as possible. And that way...the Fox/GOP could "wedgie" this one for as long as they could.
 
fairsheet said:
In my opinion (just MY opinion), Obama Justice really messed with the Fox/GOP's heads, by so willingly going along with putting this one in front of The Supreme Court, as quickly as possible.

The GOP knew damn well that the "mandate" would eventually be ruled consitutional. But...they were counting on Obama Justice making every legal manuever they could, do move the decision out as far as possible. And that way...the Fox/GOP could "wedgie" this one for as long as they could.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair assessment. Essentiall what Obama has done is taken this off the campaign table as an issue for the GOP because the ruling will probably come down in October.


  • If the PPACA is upheld, Obama gets a big win right before the election and the GOP looks like losers for arguing something that isn't actually unconstitutional
    .
  • If the "mandate" portion is turned down, Obama gets to run on the benefits of the PPACA and a promise to fixe the funding issue PROPERLY. And the GOP gets to get castigated as opposing the funding of a set of laws that the majority wants to see continued (Boomerang kid coverage, pre-existing condition coverage). Furthermore the Insurance Cos' themselves will push their pet CongressCritter to get this funded lest they end up holding the bag on Pre-Existing Condition coverage.
    .
  • If the whole law is overturned, Obama gets to fully energize his base and explain why it is important that he be the one who potentially gets to replace one of the conservatives.
 
If Mitt had a clue, this one would be tying him up in knots. His main case against "Obamacare" as opposed to "Romneycare", is that it's unconstitutional to impose something like this on a federal/nationwide basis.

So..if The Court says it IS constitutional, where does he go from there?
 
Or if it gets overturned, our kids will end up passing single payer down the road one day. The trajectory towards a single payer is set, all it needs is time and for the older GOP voters to die off. I bet the courts find a way not to make a big decision this year. I think Roberts understands the politics of it quite well. He is not going to make the mistake the courts made in 34 that led to FDR's massive win in 36.
 
if its OK to do it at the state level then it is ok to do it at the federal level. The liberty clause is the only thing they can hang their hat on. Define liberty for us....it's not that easy is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top