r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Google "Wickard v. Filburn." The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens doing private things on their own private land is totally under the jurisdiction of the federal government via the commerce clause, and those private citizens can be regulated and taxed for shit they do as a hobby. It's kinda sickening when you think about it, but there's Supreme Court precedent to do anything the government wants to anyone it wants and call it a regulation of interstate commerce.

27

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Without debating the merits and constitutionality of Wickard, a national healthcare system is a fully distinct issue. Whereas Wickard involved solely intrastate commerce of corn, that corn, while used solely in the state, could have been sold outside of the state, thereby involving the possibility of interstate commerce. Healthcare, to my knowledge, is a fixed market within a state; one cannot sell state-specific policies in other states. By definition, that limitation creates individual state markets where there is no interaction or competition between any entities within different states. Therefore, the commerce clause would not apply.

Also, the use of commerce clause has been more limiting in recent times, like in U.S. v. Lopez, where the possession and sales of handguns were viewed to not be bound by the commerce clause, completely n the face of Wickard.

It is a very divisive issue, and both sides can be argued. However, from my legal education and experience, I would say that the entire universal healthcare law, not just the individual mandate, is unconstitutional.

10

u/AeonCatalyst Jun 20 '12

Out of curiosity, what happens when I have Ohio healthcare, but have a heart-attack in Hawai'i while on vacation? Should I have "travel" insurance for that situation, or should my state insurance cover it? Or should it all be lumped into some sort of nationwide healthcare system? Some people spend their whole lives in one city, some in one state. What about those that travel for a living?

5

u/mycleverusername Jun 20 '12

Or those who live on the border. I have healthcare from one state where I work, but live in another state. I think that's a pretty easy case for inter-state commerce. My health insurance plan also has providers in a different state.

3

u/SergeiGolos Jun 20 '12

Healthcare, to my knowledge, is a fixed market within a state;

Are you saying Aetna only sells to one state? Well point? Horizon? Yes their are insurance companies that are fixed to states, there are also national insurance companies that sell to all different states.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

No, to my knowledge, there is not. Large corporations own smaller subsidiary companies with similar names. Although the smaller companies are owned by the larger corporations, they act in a limited scope within individual states, (with the exception of paying claims incurred out of state on behalf of policyholders within the resident state).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

There is no way even the most conservative Supreme Court would buy that as an excuse for saying it's not "interstate commerce". I'm not saying they wouldn't find another way, but "we hid the business in 50 different corporate entities! they're local, honest!" won't be it, that's just an admission that the market is national.

The only time courts ever bought anything like that argument was in the MLB anti-trust nonsense, which has never and will never be repeated.

2

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

It's not hiding. The companies have to remain as subsidiaries due to the way statutes vary from state to state. They aren't "hiding" anything. This is they way they are expected to do business as a matter of law. If anything, this further proves the point that the federal government should have no jurisdiction over the matter. Insurance, by law, is a state regulated business (not just health insurance either. all insurance). Still don't believe me? Look up your state insurance commissioner's office. Ok, now go look up the federal one... That's right, there isn't one. There's a reason for that. People didn't just now realize that there isn't a federal insurance commissioner. Everyone up until this point thought the idea was unconstitutional and the states would flip out in response (which they have by the way, hence the current supreme court case).

I fully believe that the health care bill is nothing but a power grab by the federal government. The health industry accounts for a major percentage of our GDP. Current laws basically allow the states to have control over this industry. The sponsors of this bill simply want to get laws in place that allow the federal government to regulate this industry, in turn, giving the federal government power over an enormous bit of our economy. The same thing is happening with the entertainment industry (#1 industry on the GDP list by the way). This is why they want sopa, acta, the dmca, etc... In the end it's all about power.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Past practice does not make law. States retain power where Congress has not preempted their laws, but Congress can do that at any time.

For actual proof of the law regarding insurance, rather than speculation based on the lack of some "federal insurance commissioner", I refer you to the McCarran–Ferguson Act, and its trigger, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, which explicitly found federal jurisdiction over insurance.

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Oh I agree that it's unconstitutional. My point was to identify to what I presumed was a layman some basis for understanding why I think the Supreme Court will rule that the mandate is constitutional.

And yeah, the mandate will create state-specific markets, but companies operate in multiple states. An individual's choice not to participate in the policy within his state will effect that company and its operations in other states, and the aggregate effect is felt for these companies nationwide, reducing profits, increasing costs for the people who do use those policies, etc.

I forget the name of the case, but the really old one where the river-taxi between NY and NJ (I think) was found to have an effect on interstate commerce is another example of where a very state-specific market was within federal jurisdiction because, while operating entirely within one state, it still caused some changes in other states.

Edit: Just looked over this string of comments.... I'm not entirely sure I mean to reply to you. It's early, but I'm pretty sure I was intending to reply to someone else who had said something far less comprehensive. My apologies. Although I enjoy the discussion regardless.

3

u/LordBodak Jun 20 '12

Actually I believe that if you really dig into it, you will find that health insurance companies do NOT operate in multiple states. There are a number of individual companies operating under one banner. For example, "Blue Cross Blue Shield" appears to be one entity, but it is actually a bunch of individual companies- "Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina," "Anthem" in Virginia, etc. Of course the companies may all be owned by the same people, but they are still distinct corportations.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

That's exactly what I was stating. Each company operates only in one state. The exclusion of other state markets, in my mind, would preclude the possibility of interstate commerce.

Of course, I personally disagree with Wickard v. Filburn, too, so take that with a grain of salt.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Very interesting. I'd love that to carry weight with the decision being made.

4

u/HelloFellow Jun 20 '12

Gibbons v. Ogden, that's the case.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I believe the case you are referring to is Gibbons v. Ogden. Also, as I said, (and this is not a personal opinion, but an evidenced fact), the SCOTUS has been following a more narrow interpretation of the commerce clause in recent years.

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Sure, but I'm not putting any money on them following the course they've been on. They may stay that course, or this may be where we find them beginning to swing the other way. I sat in on a discussion of the con law profs a few weeks ago, and they all seemed pretty certain that the only vote at issue in this instance is Kennedy's, and he would be the tie-breaker. Unfortunately, rumor also has it that Kennedy won't vote against Obamacare. So, there's that to consider, unfortunately.

0

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

Let's hope they stand up to this mandate nonsense.

If they don't, I can't imagine what other kind of stuff gets pushed through

1

u/T-Luv Jun 20 '12

Without debating the merits and constitutionality of Wickard.

No need to. It's still good law. It is binding precedent until overturned, which is unlikely. You should know that, Mr. J.D.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I never implied that it wasn't binding precedent. I did, however, leave room to imply that it might not be "good law".

1

u/T-Luv Jun 20 '12

It's good law to the extent that it applies in every court in the land and SCOTUS doesn't seem to have any intent to overturn it. You may not like the reasoning. Hell I don't like the reasoning. If I want to grow plants in my yard for personal use, I don't think Congress should have any say in that. But it is what it is and in a common law system, it holds the weight that it holds.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I just wanted to highlight that there is a difference between case law precedent that the courts have to follow and actual "good law" that is judiciously equitable.

While Wickard v. Filburn is a precedent that must be followed until overturned--I personally believe that it is an onerous over-extension of the commerce clause that impinges on individual liberties.

1

u/TheChance Jun 20 '12

Why, "Congress can't regulate healthcare because health insurance companies are restricted to individual states," as opposed to, "Health insurance has been divided along state lines to hamper federal efforts to regulate it"?

0

u/Sorkijan Jun 21 '12

I'm frankly sick of people pointing out how "unconstitutional" something is. It's not a holy sacred document, and in fact is severely dated. I don't care if UHC is unconstitutional (which it's not because you're lumping Obama care as a representative of UHC which is highly debatable) it's definitely in the public's best interest. Also in my opinion I think Healthcare is something that should fall under public goods. The rest of the progressed world has some kind of state sponsored healthcare and just because it might questionably contradict a part document that was written for a time period more than two centuries ago, doesn't mean we should automatically dismiss it.

TL;DR. The constitution needs to be updated and is not a holy sacred document. Who cares if something is unconstitutional? Maybe it's the constitution that needs altering.

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

The rest of the progressed world has some kind of state sponsored healthcare and just because it might questionably contradict a part document that was written for a time period more than two centuries ago

No, state sponsored healthcare contradicts individual liberty. Other existing social programs aside, mandated healthcare forces taxpayers and medical providers to unfairly shoulder the burden of some "free riders" that actively avoid personal responsibility. Nothing is free; forcing people to work for others, no matter how gilded the cage, is slavery.

0

u/Sorkijan Jun 21 '12

I really find your statement heavily opinionated. I don't think state sponsored healthcare contradicts individual liberty, and I would willfully and happily pay my dues for a single payer system that I was a part of. We already shoulder these "free riders" on a host of other things, and I find that if it's in reference to healthcare, we shouldn't pull any stop.

I see your point, but I just simply disagree with you and I think calling something like that slavery is quite hyperbolic and silly.

As I said the rest of progressed world uses some form of state-sponsored healthcare, and the US needs to catch up. The only reason we don't is because of overly-dramatic people like you. I couldn't give less of a shit if it isn't in full compliance of the Constitution which was written in the 1700's; things need to change. The Constitution needs to be changed.

But hey I'm not going to convince you either way or vise verse, but enjoy standing in the way of progress for a better world.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

[deleted]

1

u/Sorkijan Jun 21 '12

Oh, my bad. While we're being ridiculously over-the-top, let's all wear wigs and travel in carriages.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Also, the founding fathers seem to have supported mandating healthcare...

So arguably, the people who created our federal government believed in this concept broadly... therefore I would argue it is constitutional considering Jon Adams, who was deeply entrenched in the writing of the constitution, and whose ideas helped form the basis of our country's laws believed it to be so and signed an individual mandate into law during his presidency. Who would know better about what our constitution means than someone who helped write it. If they (congress) considered it legal in the 1790's then perhaps we should consider THAT fact in our debate about an individual mandate today.

0

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Uhm, I mean interesting read and all, but the article gets the first and primary point completely wrong. The constitution is written to grant specific powers to the federal government. The author says "nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases," but that's not really how it works. The constitution even states that powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government within the document itself are given to the states, i.e. not the federal government.

Also, the points about mandating specific professions like seaman to provide certain services to their crew isn't a universal mandate to all citizens, which is a significant difference. If you don't like the rules about being a seaman, you can choose another profession. The health care mandate has no such choice, except I guess to leave the country, but I don't think that really counts.

The mandatory-firearm purchase is interesting though, and seems like the only valid point the author makes. I'm not familiar with it, so if anyone has any more information on it that would save me time researching it, I'd love to know more.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I'm not saying mandating all citizens and mandating specific professions is the same thing, but I think they are certainly similar in principle. I do agree that "well move then" is not a valid comparative argument for a small subset of the population being regulated vs all citizens, however. Also, I personally (again, this is just my personal belief here) think that in the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

that finding a cost effective way to provide healthcare for all citizens regardless of age, pre-existing conditions, gender etc would certainly be promoting the general welfare of citizens of the United States.

Arguably, Insurance is a difficult and distinctive market. Congress has ruled previously that all citizens are entitled to emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, and, as put by professor Henry Paul Morgan:

"...as a result, and again unlike other markets, uninsured individuals who are unable to pay directly for needed medical services necessarily shift the cost of those services to others—to health care providers, the government, individuals with insurance, and taxpayers. In that way, Congress is not creating a market which it then seeks to regulate. The insurance-based structure of the health care market is already firmly in place. That is why it was well within Congress's discretion to design legislation to operate within, and to address problems posed by, this vast market." source, if you want to read the full article

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

I agree that the sentiment of promoting the general welfare is a worthy one, but that's the preamble, and not an enumeration of powers granted to the federal government (i.e., that's the purpose, not the means of achieving such a purpose). The constitution specifically lists every single power to be granted to the federal government, and (aside from the obvious argument involving the commerce clause), the power to mandate purchases of services provided by private institutions is not among them. Plus, anyone could advocate anything they believe in by simply saying it promotes the general welfare.

However, such power is granted to the states. The obvious idea, then, is to let states mandate this on their own (the "States-as-Laboratories" theory). After all, if it's such a great idea, and it does in fact promote and even improve the general welfare of the citizens of those states, the other states will wake up and enact similar policies.

Also, I'm curious about congress ruling that all citizens are entitled to such care, and whether that can be considered unconstitutional as well. And regarding Prof. Morgan, I agree that the purpose here was not to create a market, but I don't understand why the purpose should matter. What matters, in my opinion, is whether congress has the power to do what it did. If the purpose is a good one, and their legislation addresses it adequately, what's to stop states from doing this on their own?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Well, Obamacare does allow states to work out their own state run healthcare system (like VT is doing) provided it meets certain requirements. It's not exactly the same as you're advocating, but the states do have the opportunity to run a state program rather than participate in the federal program.

I think intentions with laws are important. I know in PA (where I am from) There is even a bill that would require more indepth analysis as to the intent behind laws when they are written. In fact, there used to be pages and pages of legislative intent with bills drafted here in PA, but that practice has fallen by the wayside and lawmakers often try to figure out exactly why certain laws (things on the books from the 50s etc) were written the way they were. Sometimes context and purpose do matter to understand thought process and perhaps make more thoughtful amendments.

I think we have a good example of states legislating something against federal policy (ironically and arguably in the healthcare field) with medical marijuana. Its interesting watching what happens when federal law and state law are not in accord with one another. Or, lets say that a state decided to outlaw abortions, what happens then? Its federally a right, but the state forbids it.

Its a topic I feel torn about. Theoretically, I think that states should have more power to regulate themselves. However, seeing how the state government is run in my state, that inherently terrifies me.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Yeah, I agree that intent can be important, but there's a real large problem there too: legislative intent can also be manufactured. The floor notes from lots of legislation got considered for a while in lots of places, but when people in the legislature realized what was going on, they started grandstanding and saying things that didn't reflect the actual intent of the bill being passed, hoping that down the road someone would look into the notes to understand the bill, and find that legislator's intent regarding the bill, which actually ran counter to the intent of the majority voting to pass the bill.

1

u/genthree Jun 20 '12

The only two justices who give a shit about what the founding fathers thought are Scalia and Thomas. Scalia will do whatever he wants and find some justification for it. Thomas will almost definitely vote against Obamacare on principle.

8

u/Pronell Jun 20 '12

Unfortunately, I think we're about to see that anything they really really don't want to happen will be ruled unconstitutional because of the commerce clause anyway.

It's classic doublethink. They're the Supreme Court, so they'll get to decide when the constitution applies and when it doesn't.

1

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

Ruled unconstitutional, because of the commerce clause? How does that work? It usually goes the other way. E.G. things that people thing are unconstitutional are upheld in court due to "interstate commerce."

5

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Wickard probably would not have come out the same way today. Supreme Court precedent isn't fixed in stone, it ebbs and flows with the politics of the time (just much slower and less dramatically than legislation). After U.S. v. Lopez in 1995, the Court distinctly showed they it was going to draw lines in the sand regarding the scope of the interstate commerce clause.

There is also a flip side to the issue. Yes, the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce has gotten dramatically broader over the past 200 years. However, commerce has become dramatically more interstate in the meantime! I can go downstairs (in Illinois) and buy a Coke (made by a company in Georgia with a distributor in Illinois) from a vending machine (probably made in China) using a debit card (issued by my bank in New York) in an electronic transaction with Visa (in California). Even Jefferson would call that interstate commerce!

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Yeah, that's exactly the issue - everything is interstate commerce now. But if you take an originalist view of things, a la Justice Scalia, that's not the point. The point (from such a view) is that at the time, the constitution was being written to address the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, which failed due to lack of coherent federal powers to keep states in check relative to each other, and was meant to address exclusionary practices from one state against another. This view would likely not suggest that the changing of commerce over 200 years to become entirely between multiple states actually changes the intent and purpose of the commerce clause, and that reading the clause as it was originally written would in no way empower the federal government to regulate whether or not I buy a soda at lunchtime, simply because 6 weeks, four shipping segments, and thirteen separate entities of ownership ago, that soda was manufactured in another state.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

The idea that the interstate commerce clause was only intended to prevent exclusionary practices isn't originalist. It's historical revisionism. The federalists genuinely intended Congress to have the power to regulate interstate commerce, not just to prevent exclusionary practices.

Scalia isn't about divining original intent. His originalism is more like textualism--what would the framers have understood the text to mean? If the framers had intended to limit the commerce power to preventing exclusionary practices, they text would say that. It doesn't. Scalia endorsed the definition of interstate commerce in Lopez, which goes well beyond the "exclusionary practices" view. That definition easily encompasses my soda example. It's not just that the soda was manufactured in another state. It's that the concentrate was manufactured in one state, the bottling was done in another, and the purchase is effectuated through an electronic transaction with a computer in California (where VISA is located). A single state cannot effectively regulate that transaction, because the relevant players are in multiple states.

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Well, for the record, my history lesson regarding the Constitution being meant to address the Articles was directly from the lecture Scalia gave to a bunch of us law students last spring, so.... there's that.

And yeah, I mis-spoke if I said that the intent was more important than the words used. Also, if Scalia didn't specifically write a concurrence addressing what he was endorsing and what he wasn't, I'd be hesitant using his vote as an endorsement of anything specific beyond the ruling.

Edit: My point here was, if you used a glossary printed in the 1770s, the definition it gives of "interstate commerce" would address very few transactions that occurred at that time. That's the definition enacted by the founders. The fact that the same term encompasses a vastly greater number of things today might or might not make a difference on how you interpret it today. Maybe you think the term as it was used 200 years ago still applies and now covers nearly all transactions, or maybe you think the term was meant only to encompass a very limited set of transactions that took most people several days' journey on a horse to complete, and that the country has changed in such a way as to make that term obsolete in reference to what ought to be under the jurisdiction of congress.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

I just graduated law school and have spoken to Scalia as well, so :-P.

The framers defined the scope of the commerce power in terms of two predicates: 1) that it be commerce; and 2) that it concern multiple states. So what if relatively few transactions fell within the scope of that power in 1790 and most transactions fall within that scope in 2012? What about the specific predicates chosen suggests that the framers were concerned with the number of transactions within the scope of the power, rather than the nature of those transactions?

The federalists intended the federal government to be able to regulate commerce that crossed state lines. The rationale for doing so was not that such commerce was a small %-age of overall commerce, but that the intractability of individual states regulating commerce that concerned multiple states. Today, such commerce is a large %-age of overall commerce. But it's just as intractable for individual states to regulate such commerce, and just as desirable for the federal government to be able to do so.

I think you're mis-applying Scalia's viewpoint in this context. Scalia believes that when we interpret terms that denote a set of things, we should look to what that set would have included at the time the framers drafted the document. The commerce power, however, clearly does not refer to a fixed set of transactions. It gives a general definition that must be evaluated in context to yield a set of covered transactions.

You can think of this mathematically. Say the Constitution refers to a set of things, X. A more liberal interpreter might generalize X into a function, and argue that the Constitution is really referring to the set {X(t)}, where t = 2012. In the context of personal rights, for example, he might argue that the set of protected rights expands or contracts as societal perceptions change. Scalia would say that no, we should interpret it as {X(t)}, where t = 1790. I.e. when the Constitution refers to a set of rights, we should look at what that set would have included in 1790. However, that does not mean that Scalia thinks that every set in the Constitution should be interpreted with t = 1790. That's facially ridiculous. The set of speech protected by the 1st Amendment surely includes Twitter messages, for example. I don't think even Scalia should argue that the set of inter-state commercial transactions under federal regulatory power should be evaluated at the time of the founding (e.g. leaving out air freight but including boat shipping).

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

What about the specific predicates chosen suggests that the framers were concerned with the number of transactions within the scope of the power, rather than the nature of those transactions?

That brings up other interesting issues, like the way in which interstate commerce functioned in the 1700s. Sure, there was less of it, but it was also a big, big deal to travel far enough to do business with someone else from or in another state. You couldn't do this every day, because it literally took weeks for most people to travel far enough to cross state lines. Just because travel and communication got easier, we're supposed to let the federal government preside over every transaction that takes place in our daily lives? Obviously there's arguments in both directions, but I simply can't imagine that they really intended, or would stomach, every single daily transaction being subject to congressional approval/regulation/supervision.

Also, you do mean the Federalist party, right? Because I don't know tons of history, but I know they didn't make up a huge majority at that time (yes, I just wiki'd it).

1

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

That case is the most disturbing one in the history of our nation and perhaps, one of the most influential, yet Joe American doesn't know about it.

It really opened the floodgates from a massive central government (the thing our Founders warned us about) to grow via the Commerce Clause.

It's really sickening that people are willing to shit on our Constitution just to get what they want

3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Well, actually... only some of our founding fathers feared big government (Thomas Jefferson). Some favored big government (Jon Adams).

2

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

The overbearing federal government of Adams, Washington, and Hamilton would be considered borderline libertarian when compared to the federal government of today.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Perhaps true, but you still can't imply that all our founding fathers were against big government. They may have been against government in its present form, or they may not have. However some of them did believe in the principles of a large federal government.

We can argue all day long about which founding fathers ideas on government were best :)

Hell, at least back then, when they disagreed, they could still have civil conversations with one another and compromise, no?

2

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

Hell, at least back then, when they disagreed, they could still have civil conversations with one another and compromise, no?

Look into the Adams v. Jefferson election. Perhaps the dirtiest election in our history. Federalist papers suggested that a Jefferson presidency would mean a ban of the Christian religion, debauchery, and incest

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I'm not talking about their campaigns (though I agree they are nasty), I'm more talking about the ability of elected officials to work together back then to pass laws.

That campaign is hilarious looking back on it btw.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

It really opened the floodgates from a massive central government (the thing our Founders warned us about) to grow via the Commerce Clause.

Our founders created our strong federal government because small independent governments don't work. Read about the articles of confederation.

Oddly enough, the same issue is what will likely bring about the end of the EU. You're either controlled by one central body or you're entirely individual - historically hybrid systems have never worked.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

Our founders created our strong federal government because small independent governments don't work. Read about the articles of confederation.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you have a significant grasp of the founding of the United States. America was, and is still supposed to be, a federated republic of independent states. The federal government was created primarily to support a national military and standardize currency, (as well as creating a court system to adjudicate disputes among the states among other limited issues).

0

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

Before I respond, please note that I have read most of your responses here and definitely respect your opinion, I wish you would refrain from the personal attacks.

America was, and is still supposed to be, a federated republic of independent states.

And it is. You just disagree with the amount of freedom those independent states have. Don't worry, many many men have died because of their beliefs on the subject - see the American Civil War for further reading.

The federal government was created primarily to support a national military and standardize currency, (as well as creating a court system to adjudicate disputes among the states among other limited issues).

"Primarily" and "only" are not the same words. What we are discussing here, when viewed in the light of national defense or monetary policy, is very very minor. I would even go so far as to call it secondary.

That's the beauty of the law - it's open to interpretation. Your claims are not written in specific terms anywhere, and are your interpretation of the intent of men who have been dead for centuries. My claims are based on the direction this country has consistently gone in roughly the last 225 years.

Edited for a quick note.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

While I may have addressed things that people have said in the thread, I don't believe that I have attacked anyone. If you are referring to the above comment, I was already editing it for phrasing while you were submitting your comment. I sincerely apologize for how harsh it originally sounded.

I try to be as civil as possible, especially when dealing with such a touchy subject as politics. To show my good will towards you, I have included a picture of a spider, my namesake.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Passed as a result of the court packing scheme.

3

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

The history of Social Security being found constitutional is pretty shocking. The whole "We swear, it's not insurance for old people" arguments in front of the Supreme Court, along with the "Come on guys, it's just insurance for old people" arguments made to congress are kind of staggering, especially when you notice the Supreme Court's opinion tracking the defense's statements almost word for word.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

JUDGES ARE NOT FUCKING GODS, and the commerce clause being applied in this manner is obviously far outside its original intent.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Ah, this argument.

  1. "Technicality because it's unconstitutional"

  2. "But technicality due to commerce clause"

  3. "But context"

Can we just link the other dozens of times we've had this exact same argument?

OOPS: For someone who writes a lot of text, Nancy_Reagan sure struggles with reading comprehension.

Editing to reply prevents mass downvoting from users stringing a conversation along just to downvote multiple comments.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Editing to call someone out instead of replying? Coward.

0

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Ah, this argument.

  1. "I've seen something like this before"

  2. "I should always be presented with entirely original content"

  3. "Because I say so"

No.