Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues The Supreme Court and ObamaCare's Demise?

Oh my God the hand-wringing!

If automakers are forced to install seat belts in cars there will no limit what the federal government can do to a business!

If minimum wage is made law, all business will be destroyed...DESTROYED I tell you!

If American business cannot employ small children as labor, we will witness the end of labor itself!

It seems like every time the government attempts to "govern" there is always a Greek Chorus of Chicken Littles eager to run around with their heads cut off screaming about how the sky is falling, and yet when Henny Penny wants some help making bread none of the other farmyard animals are willing to help.

But they're more than happy to EAT the bread once Henny Penny has baked a few loaves.

Tim, what about the process of "Judicial Review" by the Supreme Court as related to its intervention in the health care act's mandate provisions?

I believe that we have a self-will-run-riot government. And I'm not being specific to just Congress in my comment.

My question is: Is the Supreme Court acting within its Constitutional rights to get involved at all?

Schalck:

You are on the right track, at least with respect to the 1798 statute. I cannot find a reference to an earlier 1790 statute; I don't have time or enough interest to go through the uncodified Revised Statutes looking for it.

The 1798 mandate was levied directly on the seaman, not on the ship owner. At the roots it is quite like ACA, but without any opt-out provision at all. Source

Imbedded within that article is a citation to the statute itself, which may be found at An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen

The first section reads as follows:

(emphasis added)



One source says that seamen received from $10 to $17 a month during the early 1800s, so the rate of collection was perhaps 2% for this levy. Other citations near the one just above put the monthly rate as low as $4 or $5, so 20 cents a month may have had a significant impact on the seaman.

Ahem. Ma R. The problem is this is a legal argument issue, so of course it will involve discussion of the law (the supreme version of which is, by the way, the Constitution). It is not a matter of legalese, which I happen to speak fluently, but lawyers are wont to use the law in making arguments. Hazard of the trade, I suppose.

This misapprehension was addressed by reference to the Elhauge article, so the point is actually wrong. Apparently all three branches of government felt the same way then as two of them did when the ACA was passed. Interestingly, those in the Congress (and elsewhere) who scream the loudest about this imposition of law don't seem to have the same qualms when it comes to mandating behavior in other realms. How the Conservatives Won with Mandates and the Liberals Lose with Mandates

NWP...don't know if you saw my previous post, which I believe that I've framed it to stay in line with the topic. But what's your opinion regarding "Judicial Review" in the matter of the Health Care Act now before the S.C.?

Actually, anybody feel free to jump in on the topic of "Judicial Review" in relationship to the thread.