tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773365729835826760.post2105592085350506799..comments2023-05-14T03:43:12.329-04:00Comments on Feeding the Silence: On Hunting for HypocrisyJD Byrnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01067546694307829807noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773365729835826760.post-92030437447656832702011-02-03T13:09:40.329-05:002011-02-03T13:09:40.329-05:00My understanding is that the Massachusetts mandate...My understanding is that the Massachusetts mandate was upheld, but I haven't looked it up so I'm not sure what the theories were (whether they were state or Fed based). There may be other examples. <br /><br />It would depend on what a state's constitution said about legislative power and individual rights. States generally have plenary power to do whatever they want, provided that they don't run afoul of state/fed constitutional rights, relevant fed laws, and treaties. Thus, states unquestionably have the police power - the power to make certain acts a crime. By contrast, the feds ability to do so is limited to federal enclaves and things associated with the powers given by the Constitution. <br /><br />That's why (for example) the fed gun laws all require the guns to have been "in and effecting interstate commerce." That's the hook for federal jurisdiction. States can outlaw guns just for the hell of it, subject to the still evolving limits of the Second Amendment (and state equivalents).<br /><br />There's a reason why the challenges to the health car law, which are the product of lots of bright libertarian/right-wing minds, are couched in terms of federalism, not individual rights.JD Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752668899810828567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773365729835826760.post-4567840700000927362011-02-03T11:36:56.514-05:002011-02-03T11:36:56.514-05:00So, are you hinting that the individual states cou...So, are you hinting that the individual states could mandate health insurance coverage and it would be Constitutional?Robinhttp://www.facebook.com/robin.a.holsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773365729835826760.post-19191815339577029072011-02-02T19:58:27.915-05:002011-02-02T19:58:27.915-05:00Well of course it's discriminatory, it's f...Well of course it's discriminatory, it's from 1792! And even this South Dakota proposal had an age limitation.<br /><br />Honestly, I've not read any of the health care cases that closely, because they don't really matter at this point. This is one of those issues you know will wind up at SCOTUS, so there's not a whole lot of point in getting in deep right now.<br /><br />But assuming you're right about what the judge in Florida said, "over-reaching" arises from the federalism angle, not any individual rights being asserted. The argument is that the mandate lies beyond the powers of the federal government as set forth by the Constitution.JD Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752668899810828567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773365729835826760.post-72090512517757419292011-02-02T19:40:44.329-05:002011-02-02T19:40:44.329-05:00My friend - your actual point is observed and note...My friend - your actual point is observed and noted. However, the 1792 language you shared is discriminatory in the race, age, and gender areas.<br /><br />Question - does the judge's comments (which I have not read myself, only heard through news reports) play at all? If I am correct, the Florida judge commented on the federal governments over-reach trying to mandate citizens to make a purchase they don't want to make. Will the US SCOA consider his comments?Robinhttp://www.facebook.com/robin.a.holsteinnoreply@blogger.com