Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
Joel Send a noteboard - 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
It seems weird anyone would accuse him of judicial activism for pointing out that this would give unlimited power. There's no legal difference between the gov't forcing you to buy health insurance and forcing you to buy a shotgun, and I'd think the analogy would hold, if one is trying to make healthcare a right, like gun ownership is, then the parallel would be demanding we all subsidize people's handgun and rifle purchases and force everyone to buy guns, or similarly as free speech is a right, making people buy newspapers. I can't think of any legal reason why forced insurance purchase would be okay but those aren't, and heck, guns and newspapers are a lot cheaper then health care insurance.
Unfortunately, the healthcare law doesn't force the purchase, as you know full well. I don't like what it DOES do to mandate coverage, especially since 1) Obama explicitly pledged during the primaries that he WOULDN'T do that, 2) it won't work and 3) it would only be acceptable as a necessary evil if accompanied by a non-existent public option that makes it more than a subsidy to private insurance. I've seen no evidence, however, that it's unconstitutional. Not that, like the others, I'd bat an eye if the GOP SCOTUS said it is anyway and then went into another rant about activist judges.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law -
13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
- 960 Views
*yawn*
13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
- 624 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal! *NM*
13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
- 242 Views
So riddle me this...
13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
- 641 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
- 573 Views
That wasn't my question.
13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
- 679 Views
I get what you're saying...
13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
- 667 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
- 608 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
- 564 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
- 646 Views
*nods*
14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
- 637 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
- 744 Views
It's judicial review
14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
- 626 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
- 637 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
- 651 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
- 574 Views
there is a major problem with this..
14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
- 618 Views
Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
- 576 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
- 599 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
- 566 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
- 589 Views
Just to note....
14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
- 583 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
- 527 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
- 557 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
- 712 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
- 307 Views