• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Commerce Clause? for those that know what they are talking about.

Sgt Hulka

Sgt Hulka

Board Big Toe
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,811
Reaction score
226
Location
ATL
I would be interested to hear from those who said that this was constitutional under the commerce clause. It appears to me that the court didn't just say no, but HELL NO! (disclaimer, I have not read the opinions, just read/listened to legal opinions on it).

Anyway, how do you feel about this? Considering some said it was a slam dunk.

Does it limit the fed's use of the commerce clause in the future, or at least give congress pause?

What is your opinion on the 10th amendment aspect of the case?

Do you feel that this increases or decreases the power of the federal government?

Thanks for your feedback.
 
4 judges said it was constitutional under the commerce clause, as did most con law experts.

It only limits the fed's use of the commerce clause in the future if this BS activity v. inactivity distinction comes up again, which is unlikely.
 
Shooshmoo said:
4 judges said it was constitutional under the commerce clause, as did most con law experts.

It only limits the fed's use of the commerce clause in the future if this BS activity v. inactivity distinction comes up again, which is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback, but I don't know that you qualify anymore. However, I do appreciate it.
 
I am not constitutional law expert, so don't count me in the intelligent discussion part of this thread, but based on the experts that I read and heard on the radio, I was surprised that it did not pass the commerce clause test and that it was forced into being described as a tax. It did seem that most experts that I read (non-partisan ones at least) expected it to pass.
 
The Court came down 5-4 against the Commerce Clause, so that's NOT a HELL NO. Had Roberts gone the other way on the Taxation power, the media would be all over the ideological 5-4 commerce clause split.
 
Last edited:
KitchinDeac said:
The Court came down 5-4 against the Commerce Clause, so that's a HELL NO. Had Roberts gone the other way on the Taxation power, the media would be all over the ideological 5-4 commerce clause split.
Click to expand...

9-0 is a HELL NO. 5-4 is a no.
 
Yeah, confused how 5-4 would be hell no. You can't get any closer than that on a ruling. 7-2 would even be a hell no, but 5-4 just seems like 1 vote either way would have made the difference.
 
Wrangor said:
Yeah, confused how 5-4 would be hell no. You can't get any closer than that on a ruling. 7-2 would even be a hell no, but 5-4 just seems like 1 vote either way would have made the difference.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, I wasn't talking about the breakdown of votes, but rather the majority opinion that said (IMO) "hell no". The majority opinion (again, I have not read it) from what I have heard was rather dismissive of the commerce clause as a rationale for the mandate.

Sorry.
 
Also, I don't want to start another thread, but if this was presented as a Tax, would it ever have passed? If not, does that make it's validity questionable?
 
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer joined in Roberts' opinion that it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion that argued that the opposite.
 
TR1982 said:
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer joined in Roberts' opinion that it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion that argued that the opposite.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I don't have the opinion in front of me right now, but I didn't think that was the case.
 
Is the individual mandate constitutional?

4 said NO under the Commerce Clause
4 said Yes under the Commerce Clause (and Yes as a tax)
Roberts said No under the Commerce Clause, but Yes as a tax

Thus, 5 yes votes upholding the mandate even though the 5 got there in different ways.
 
Last edited:
TR1982 said:
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer joined in Roberts' opinion that it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion that argued that the opposite.
Click to expand...

Having made it through Roberts and Ginsburgs opinions, I can tell you that you are incorrect.

Roberts was the only one of the five upholders with the opinion that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

Breyer and Kagan joined Roberts on striking down the Medicaid provision that would have allowed the government to strip ALL Medicaid funds from states that opted out of the expansions.

Sotomayor joined Ginsburg in full. Breyer and Kagan joined Ginsburg in all parts other than the Medicaid part
 
MysteryMen said:
Having made it through Roberts and Ginsburgs opinions, I can tell you that you are incorrect.

Roberts was the only one of the five upholders with the opinion that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

Breyer and Kagan joined Roberts on striking down the Medicaid provision that would have allowed the government to strip ALL Medicaid funds from states that opted out of the expansions.

Sotomayor joined Ginsburg in full. Breyer and Kagan joined Ginsburg in all parts other than the Medicaid part
Click to expand...

Ah, you're right. Nevermind.
 
TR1982 said:
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer joined in Roberts' opinion that it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion that argued that the opposite.
Click to expand...

No, Part III-A was the Part in which Roberts's opinion said the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. That Part was not joined by any other Justice (though obviously the Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito dissent agrees).

ETA: didn't mean to pile on - was looking for the correct Part to reference and it took too long before the last two posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top