Would a broccoli mandate be unconstitutional?

[Ziggurat]

Congressional power has to stem from somewhere. In this case (and in most cases) Congress gets its power from the commerce clause. Republicans argue that a mandate exceeds that authority. Obviously, the authority to regulate commerce must have a limit or Congress would have infinite power. Where that line is drawn is largely left to personal taste.

A line left to personal taste is no line at all. That simply isn't good enough.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A line left to personal taste is no line at all. That simply isn't good enough.

Yeah, I'm not sure what KingMerv meant by that statement.

Even those of us arguing that the individual mandate falls within the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause authority aren't arguing that Congress has limitless power.

The limit is that Congress has the authority to regulate economic activity that has a significant effect on interstate commerce. While that is certainly a broad power, it is not an unlimited authority.

OTOH, I think there could be an infinite number of laws written that fall within that limited authority. So it would be possible to think up many hypothetical laws (some that would be bad policy) that would be constitutional within the Commerce Clause authority.

 

[Thunder]

folks who don't buy health insurance would probably go on Medicaid if they got sick/injured and couldn't pay the bills. that means I and you would pay their bills.

wouldn't it just be cheaper for us all if we just all bought health insurance?

I'll be willing to forgo folks having to buy health insurance if they sign a form promising to not use public funds if they get sick and can't pay.

 

[KingMerv00]

A line left to personal taste is no line at all. That simply isn't good enough.

Yeah, I'm not sure what KingMerv meant by that statement.

I meant that "the power to regulate commerce" is a nearly blank canvas. One person's regulation is another person's tyranny. Yes, we have case law to go buy but those too are founded on subjective definitions.

Even those of us arguing that the individual mandate falls within the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause authority aren't arguing that Congress has limitless power.

The limit is that Congress has the authority to regulate economic activity that has a significant effect on interstate commerce. While that is certainly a broad power, it is not an unlimited authority.

OTOH, I think there could be an infinite number of laws written that fall within that limited authority. So it would be possible to think up many hypothetical laws (some that would be bad policy) that would be constitutional within the Commerce Clause authority.

Just to be clear, I don't think the Commerce Clause grants infinite power. I was saying that we have to grant that the commerce power of Congress must end somewhere. Where? Don't know. We have to go on a case by case basis.

 

[KingMerv00]

A line left to personal taste is no line at all. That simply isn't good enough.

Shame the commerce clause is vaguely written eh?

 

[deepatrax]

Shame the commerce clause is vaguely written eh?

actually it's not.

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce"

Commerce = transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities.

I argue that not purchasing something means I'm not engaging in Commerce and thus can't be regulated by Congress. btw, you'll note that the Commerce clause says "regulate" not mandate.

The pro-mandate people (ludicrously) disagree...not only that, but they then try to link it with the "General Welfare" clause.

Not only are they saying that not doing something is Commerce, but that it can be mandated and not merely regulated.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Shame the commerce clause is vaguely written eh?

I do not see how requiring the purchase of broccoli at the federal level is "regulating commerce" within the confines of the sixteen words of the commerce clause.

I also see the IX and X amendments being in play here.

That said, how the broccoli is to be paid for, if there is a federal mandate, is a critical matter in the popularity or applicability of such a statute.

I find unfunded federal mandates some of the WORST law, and WORST government, on record.

How hard is the commerce clause to be tortured before it arises from the page and screams "I Know Where Osama Bin Laden Is!!!!!"

 

[TraneWreck]

actually it's not.

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce"

Commerce = transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities.

I argue that not purchasing something means I'm not engaging in Commerce and thus can't be regulated by Congress. btw, you'll note that the Commerce clause says "regulate" not mandate.

1) 235 years of court decisions and acts of Congress says you're wrong.
2) What if Kansas passes a law that says, "All trucks from companies licensed in other states shall pay a $5 tax to use our roads."? That's not a purchase, does it affect interstate commerce?

The pro-mandate people (ludicrously) disagree...not only that, but they then try to link it with the "General Welfare" clause.

Congress has the power to tax and spend for the General Welfare, but the clause is not, itself, a source of Congressional power.

Not only are they saying that not doing something is Commerce, but that it can be mandated and not merely regulated.

Again, "regulating commerce" involves more than just transactions. How do goods arrive in stores? How do we insure that food and products are safe? How do we decide how taxes should be apportioned on goods and services that travel accross multiple states?

Your assertion is incredibly naive. Even people that argue for a limited scope to Commerce Clause powers don't argue that point. These were the limitation that the Rehnquist Court imposed on the CC:

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce[9];
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities[10];
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Let's say a state has a sea port where ships collect goods to export to other nations. Can that state pass a law that says, "Harbor security officials are only required to secure and guard goods from this state."?

That's "not doing something."

 

[deepatrax]

1) 235 years of court decisions and acts of Congress says you're wrong.

no, you're wrong and will be shown to be so

2) What if Kansas passes a law that says, "All trucks from companies licensed in other states shall pay a $5 tax to use our roads."? That's not a purchase, does it affect interstate commerce?

that's a State...please stay on topic, we're talking Congressional powers

Again, "regulating commerce" involves more than just transactions. How do goods arrive in stores?

activity...commerce

How do we insure that food and products are safe?

regulation, etc...perfectly reasonable

Let's say a state has a sea port where ships collect goods to export to other nations. Can that state pass a law that says, "Harbor security officials are only required to secure and guard goods from this state."?

States again...stick to the topic!

 

[TraneWreck]

no, you're wrong and will be shown to be so

Uh, no.

that's a State...please stay on topic, we're talking Congressional powers

Study the negative implication of the Commerce Clause, or the "Dormant Commerce Clause":

The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse — a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

Once again, you have such a limited understanding of the subject you make bold pronouncements about that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation with you.

And lest you begin to whine about "original intent":

The idea that regulation of interstate commerce may to some extent be an exclusive Federal power was discussed even before adoption of the Constitution, though the framers did not use the word "dormant." On September 15, 1787, the Framers of the Constitution debated in Philadelphia whether to guarantee states the ability to lay duties of tonnage without Congressional interference, in order for states to finance the clearing of harbors and the building of lighthouses.[1] James Madison believed that the mere existence of the Commerce Clause would bar states from imposing any duty of tonnage: "He was more and more convinced that the regulation of Commerce was in its nature indivisible and ought to be wholly under one authority.

activity...commerce

regulation, etc...perfectly reasonable

States again...stick to the topic!

These weren't even responses. What do you think these ignorant, non-answers accomplish?

 

[deepatrax]

These weren't even responses. What do you think these ignorant, non-answers accomplish?

Why do you keep asking me a hypothetical about something that a State might do?

This is about what Congress can or can't do...

if you want to discuss if Kansas can do something, start another thread.

 

[TraneWreck]

Why do you keep asking me a hypothetical about something that a State might do?

This is about what Congress can or can't do...

if you want to discuss if Kansas can do something, start another thread.

Because it's state action that is relevant to the dormant commerce clause. Did you even read the link I gave you?

If you were to take a bar exam, which I've done, these are the type of questions you'd be asked about the Commerce Clause. This is basic Con Law.

Again, you are so woefully ignorant of this topic that you can't even hold an intelligible conversation. I don't hold that against you. I've been to law school and passed a bar, this is my area of expertise. It does, however, bother me that you exert no effort to learn.

When the physics experts on the forum start dropping knowledge about quantum mechanics, I don't start making bold proclamations about electron spin, I try to learn.

 

[deepatrax]

Because it's state action that is relevant to the dormant commerce clause. Did you even read the link I gave you?
...

No, I completely understood but consider it irrelevant to the topic...but if you wish, I'll play along anyway...although let it be noted that you failed to answer my hypothetical above first.

so let's play...

What if Kansas passes a law that says, "All trucks from companies licensed in other states shall pay a $5 tax to use our roads."? That's not a purchase, does it affect interstate commerce?

yes it does. question answered.

How do goods arrive in stores?

activity, commerce. question answered.

How do we decide how taxes should be apportioned on goods and services that travel across multiple states?

Congress. question answered.

Let's say a state has a sea port where ships collect goods to export to other nations. Can that state pass a law that says, "Harbor security officials are only required to secure and guard goods from this state."?

I would doubt it. question answered.

Now, how is ANY of this relevant to the thread topic??

 

[TraneWreck]

No, I completely understood but consider it irrelevant to the topic...but if you wish, I'll play along anyway...although let it be noted that you failed to answer my hypothetical above first.

Haha, so the actual way in which the Commerce Clause works is irrelevant to a discussion about the Commerce Clause. Interesting.

so let's play...

yes it does. question answered.

So this "clear" meaning of the Commerce Clause you offered:

Commerce = transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities.

Is wrong.

activity, commerce. question answered.

Congress. question answered.

These are more things that aren't sales and purchase transactions. Thus, the Commerce Clause involves far more than your "obvious" definition can consider.

I would doubt it. question answered.

So inaction is also relevant to the Commerce Clause.

Now, how is ANY of this relevant to the thread topic??

Because you've just systematically dismantled the goofy definition of Commerce power you offered earlier.

 

[deepatrax]

Haha, so the actual way in which the Commerce Clause works is irrelevant to a discussion about the Commerce Clause. Interesting.




So this "clear" meaning of the Commerce Clause you offered:



Is wrong.



These are more things that aren't sales and purchase transactions. Thus, the Commerce Clause involves far more than your "obvious" definition can consider.





So inaction is also relevant to the Commerce Clause.



Because you've just systematically dismantled the goofy definition of Commerce power you offered earlier.

for **** sake man...

Congress CAN regulate interstate Commerce.

Goods arriving in stores, being transported by trucks from State to State, arriving at our shores is ALL COMMERCE!

Do you really think that the definition I provided meant that Commerce was only the actual activity of money changing hands and nothing else??

*facepalm*

Here's an example of a transaction:

CompanyX will pay CompanyY $1000 when CompanyY drives their truck from CA to NY and delivers goods to CompanyX. That ENTIRE thing falls under Commerce!

get it??

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you really think that the definition I provided meant that Commerce was only the actual activity of money changing hands and nothing else??

Haha, you are a character.

I have learned my lesson. I will no longer assume that the crap you spew even makes sense to you.

Here was your definition again:

Commerce = transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities.

My fault for reading your post.

 

[deepatrax]

Haha, you are a character.

I have learned my lesson. I will no longer assume that the crap you spew even makes sense to you.

So, you and I are in agreement then...every example you gave was of some sort of Transaction...and therefore Commerce.

Now that I've answered your questions, perhaps you can answer mine?

Assume for hypothetical purposes that they could be enforced...

Which would result in lower Health Care costs for Americans?

1) Requiring the purchase of health insurance

2) Requiring the eating of a well-balanced diet in keeping with RDA guidelines, mandating that all able-bodied people participate in weekly exercise, and limiting sedentary activities including Television and the Internet

Are both within the enumerated powers given to Congress in the Constitution?

 

[TraneWreck]

So, you and I are in agreement then...every example you gave was of some sort of Transaction...and therefore Commerce.

No, not even close. Taxes aren't "transactions" under any common understanding of the word, and I gave you an example of security guards not protecting out of state goods. Not a transaction.

You're a mess.

Now that I've answered your questions, perhaps you can answer mine?

Both would aid the health.

Neither are in the enumerated powers. #1 is subject to Congressional authority through the Commerce Clause due to it's direct connection to interstate insurance markets.

 

[deepatrax]

No, not even close. Taxes aren't "transactions" under any common understanding of the word, and I gave you an example of security guards not protecting out of state goods. Not a transaction.

You're a mess.



Both would aid the health.

Neither are in the enumerated powers. #1 is subject to Congressional authority through the Commerce Clause due to it's direct connection to interstate insurance markets.

My friend, I think you're confusing the Commerce Clause with the Tax and Spending Clause (General Welfare Clause)...they're 2 different things.

 

[TraneWreck]

My friend, I think you're confusing the Commerce Clause with the Tax and Spending Clause (General Welfare Clause)...they're 2 different things.

Whoa boy. A tax levvied by a state affecting interstate Commerce will be overturned because of the negative implications of the Commerce Clause. That's why I mentioned the states. This caused you some consternation, you'll recall.

Congress apportioning a tax is a different matter.

You're just so very, very far off.