Would a broccoli mandate be unconstitutional?

Meadmaker said:
The thought process seems to be, "If they can make me buy X then they can make me buy Y", regardless of the values of X and Y.

I'm saying that the "make me buy" part is not inherently beyond the powers of Congress, and I would like to hear someone give some sort of argument why they can't do that, beyond bare assertion. If it is within the legitimate exercise of governmental power to be concerned with my purchase of broccoli, then the specific means, such as a purchase mandate, are not very important. If, on the other hand, it is none of the government's business whether or not I buy broccoli, then a broccoli mandate is unconstitutional. However, the "mandate" is not the unconstitutional part. It's the "broccoli" that makes it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The best argument I can think of against a broccoli mandate would be founded in the 14th amendment right to privacy. (ie The right to be left alone.)

Worked in Roe v. Wade after all.
 
KingMerv00 said:
The best argument I can think of against a broccoli mandate would be founded in the 14th amendment right to privacy. (ie The right to be left alone.)

Worked in Roe v. Wade after all.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty workable scenario.

Define the right to spend one's money where they wish as a fundamental privacy right. Then the government must meet a strict scrutiny standard for the spending mandate to be constitutional.

Now it's relatively easy to see why controlling health care costs that threaten to destroy the nation's economy would be allowable while making people buy broccoli wouldn't.
 
I think we can all agree that a collard green mandate would both be constitutional and delicious.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'd be more interested about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Drugs. Both were justified using the Commerce Clause. How do conservatives feel about the latter? Are they comfy striking down part of Reagan's legacy?
Click to expand...

I didn't know that (that those laws were justified by the CC). I will now have to read up on that bit of history. . .

Thanks. . . I think.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Careful. Here there be monsters.
Click to expand...

I've got a somewhat out-of-date Constitutional Law textbook. Next time I have insomnia, I'll pore over the sections on the Civil Rights Act and the War on Drugs.

(Just skimming, I at least see the Civil Rights Act is based on several principles--the CC, the "equal protection" clause, etc.)

So what's your take on the "inactivity" argument?
 
KingMerv00 said:
The best argument I can think of against a broccoli mandate would be founded in the 14th amendment right to privacy. (ie The right to be left alone.)

Worked in Roe v. Wade after all.
Click to expand...

That's especially true if the broccoli mandate were a consumption mandate. I think it would be a slam dunk on these grounds. Even a purchase mandate would very likely be overturned on those grounds.

Abortion provides a good example of why saying "it's covered by the commerce clause" does not mean that it's constitutional. Abortion clearly has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, but laws banning abortion or laws mandating abortion would be overturned.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I've got a somewhat out-of-date Constitutional Law textbook. Next time I have insomnia, I'll pore over the sections on the Civil Rights Act and the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

Let me help:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Gonzales v. Raich


So what's your take on the "inactivity" argument?
Click to expand...

I think it is novel (that's not necessarily a compliment) so I doubt there is any standing legal precedent. Personally, I don't think it is particularly compelling because we all take part in the healthcare system whether we like it or not.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I think it is novel (that's not necessarily a compliment) so I doubt there is any standing legal precedent. Personally, I don't think it is particularly compelling because we all take part in the healthcare system whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...

That's more or less what I've been saying in one of the other two active threads on this topic.

I think the activity test is much more about whether the significant effect on interstate commerce is actual or conjectural than it is about how active or passive the activity is. In Lopez the connection was inference upon inference (and about something that hadn't in fact happened). It was more about an effect that might or could happen, and therefore beyond Congress' CC authority. The cost of the uninsured is much more like the effect of farmers not buying the wheat they consumed from the open market on wheat price stability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom