danivon wrote:What is the fundamental difference in Massechussets between Romneycare and Obamacare?

One is a state law and the other is a federal law.

danivon wrote:I am yet again stunned at the way Americans can't discuss whether a policy is good or bad

See this is the problem with non-Americans. A policy could be good but still Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to pursue.

danivon wrote:So, why would Romney oppose the individual mandate, which was pretty fundamental to both plans?

Because one is a state law and the other is a Federal law. One can agree that a state can do it but the Constitution says the Federal gov't doesn't allow it.

Ricky,

I can't answer your judicial ideologue question yet because I haven't read the decision yet. I am not ignoring it. Once I have a chance to read it, I'll let you know.

If this is determined to be a tax, then it can be removed with a simple majority, no?

How to explain this decision? To me, the federal governement can regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause since health insurance clearly affects interstate commerce. As far as forcing people to buy health insurance unless the federal governement infringes on a person's constitutional rights what's ther problem? What constitutional right is violated when the federal government, as part of regulating an activity through its Commerce Powers clause, says there is a penalty if you don't engage in the activity? If the argument is that the Commerce Clause does not reach those who do not want to participate in the activity that reaches Interstate Commerce, it seems to me all the government has to show is that this is a requirement of regulating the activity and am a certain amount of deference should be shown the federal governmetn in making that determination.

I am happy for the result but it seems extremely political. My guess would be after Citizens United and the 2000 electoin the Supreme Court did not want another decision in favor of conservatives. The court is not immune to political winds. Perhaps Roberts wanted to separate himself from the conserrvative bloc. Clearly, this was a compromise decision with the weakest possible decision in favor of Obamacare. You can call it a tax I guess but I don't see it as being the same as a mortage tax credit--one penalizes you for not doing something, the other rewards for you doing something. Hard cases make bad law and politically charged ones do as well.

Btrad,

I would argue that in any scheme to regulae guns there is no necessity to force people to particpate in buying guys to regulate the activity under the Commerce Clause. In other words, if an acitivity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause the federal government can do so but they can't force non-participalnts into the acitivity unless they have a reasonable basis for doing so. Under Roberts I guess once you find an activity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause you have carte blance to force non-participants into the activity by means of power to tax.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:What is the fundamental difference in Massechussets between Romneycare and Obamacare?

One is a state law and the other is a federal law.

Ok... So the actual laws are essentially the same but apply at a different level?

danivon wrote:I am yet again stunned at the way Americans can't discuss whether a policy is good or bad

See this is the problem with non-Americans. A policy could be good but still Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to pursue.

so what? It has just been established that this one is constitutional. The 'problem' seems to be that you are still concentrating on something that is moot.

danivon wrote:So, why would Romney oppose the individual mandate, which was pretty fundamental to both plans?

Because one is a state law and the other is a Federal law. One can agree that a state can do it but the Constitution says the Federal gov't doesn't allow it.

and yet, the people whose job it is to test that have already done so and found that the Federal Government can.

Even a dumb foreigner can grasp this.

freeman2 wrote:Btrad,

I would argue that in any scheme to regulae guns there is no necessity to force people to particpate in buying guys to regulate the activity under the Commerce Clause. In other words, if an acitivity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause the federal government can do so but they can't force non-participalnts into the acitivity unless they have a reasonable basis for doing so. Under Roberts I guess once you find an activity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause you have carte blance to force non-participants into the activity by means of power to tax.

Didn't Roberts say that the Commerce Clause does not apply in this case?

bbauska wrote:If this is determined to be a tax, then it can be removed with a simple majority, no?

Yes.

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman2 wrote:Btrad,

I would argue that in any scheme to regulae guns there is no necessity to force people to particpate in buying guys to regulate the activity under the Commerce Clause. In other words, if an acitivity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause the federal government can do so but they can't force non-participalnts into the acitivity unless they have a reasonable basis for doing so. Under Roberts I guess once you find an activity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause you have carte blance to force non-participants into the activity by means of power to tax.

Didn't Roberts say that the Commerce Clause does not apply in this case?

Yes.

The liberals wanted it to apply. The conservatives, including Kennedy, wanted to strike it down entirely. The Activist voted with the liberals, but explicitly rejected using the Commerce Clause.

bbauska

If this is determined to be a tax, then it can be removed with a simple majority, no?

Even a dumb foreigner can understand that the answer to this is not necessarily. In the House yes. But in the Senate if the minority want to filibuster, as the Republicans did constantly for the first two years of Obama's administration, the answer is then no. A super majority is needed.
And if the president vetos its 2/3rds....in both houses.

The chances of the law going away quickly come down to how people respond to the law as its enacted... There are certain improvements that much of the populcae will embrace as they experience such.

As for you enforced fire arms ownership.... I presume the rationale is that the fire arms are required for the defence of the nation?
A similar law in the past drafted men for the armed forces.... For the defence of the nation. Not popular in the 60s but it was enforced....
How'd you feel about the draft. ?

archduke

can't answer your judicial ideologue question yet because I haven't read the decision yet. I am not ignoring it. Once I have a chance to read it, I'll let you know.

Thank you.
I think its interesting that the popular press are focussed on the politics of the jurists ...though some are attempting to discuss the judicial philosophy. Its an illustration of the discussion we had before.

archduke

Because one is a state law and the other is a Federal law. One can agree that a state can do it but the Constitution says the Federal gov't doesn't allow it

.

Interesting how the constitution can restrict the nation from solving its problems.
I beleive that in the case of this law, if the states fail to set up an insurance exchange, the federal govenrnment is legally required to set it up in the state so that all Americans have equal access....
In the past, the federal government has also taken over areas that were the responsibility because the state failed to enact federal law. (Voting rights for instance). Especially when the States conducted themselves in a way that contradicted the rights accorded all American citizens under law. (Equal access being key.)

rickyp wrote:Even a dumb foreigner can understand that the answer to this is not necessarily. In the House yes. But in the Senate if the minority want to filibuster, as the Republicans did constantly for the first two years of Obama's administration, the answer is then no. A super majority is needed?

This may not be the case. The argument is that as a tax a bill to repeal the insurance mandate would be a budgetary bill which could be run through the reconcillation process. Since the reconcilliation process can not be filibustered and would therefore only require a simple majority to pass.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:Even a dumb foreigner can understand that the answer to this is not necessarily. In the House yes. But in the Senate if the minority want to filibuster, as the Republicans did constantly for the first two years of Obama's administration, the answer is then no. A super majority is needed?

This may not be the case. The argument is that as a tax a bill to repeal the insurance mandate would be a budgetary bill which could be run through the reconcillation process. Since the reconcilliation process can not be filibustered and would therefore only require a simple majority to pass.

And, as the only reason the law withstood Constitutional inspection is because one justice ruled it a "tax," then yes, it will be eligible for reconciliation.

danivon wrote:Ok... So the actual laws are essentially the same but apply at a different level?

don't know. I haven't actually read the Romneycare law. You only asked for the fundamental difference between the two which is the question I answered

danivon wrote:so what? It has just been established that this one is constitutional. The 'problem' seems to be that you are still concentrating on something that is moot.

Well Mr. Obnoxious, I was answering the complaint you made that American's can't discuss the merits of a policy without first determining were it came from. We are a federal system that has a Federal government with limited powers. Therefore, determining whether a law is state or federal is fundamental to determining whether it is/should be valid.

danivon wrote:So, why would Romney oppose the individual mandate, which was pretty fundamental to both plans?

Because one is a state law and the other is a Federal law. One can agree that a state can do it but the Constitution says the Federal gov't doesn't allow it. and yet, the people whose job it is to test that have already done so and found that the Federal Government can.

Even a dumb foreigner can grasp this.

Again Mr. Obnoxious, a person can disagree with the decision. Or are all you who complain about Citizens United while still supporting organizations that spend money hand over fist wrong to complain about the money?