12
   

Justice Scalia and Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:29 am
@MontereyJack,
I 'm sure that he did not intend that to be applied to any citizen,
with Constitutional rights.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:36 am
He was pretty cavalier about constitutional rights.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:44 am
@MontereyJack,
U r vague.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 02:51 am
but truthful.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 03:11 am
@MontereyJack,
but unimportant, without precision
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 03:12 am
nonsense.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 03:13 am
@MontereyJack,
waste of time & space
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2012 03:16 am
generally we feel the same way about your posts, david, but continue to suffer thru them anyway
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 03:24 pm
Quote:
Rejecting Affordable Care Act is rejecting Constitution
(By Akhil Amar and Todd Brewster, ConstitutionCenter.org, March 19, 2012)

Next week, while the Republicans continue their search for a candidate to stand against President Obama in the fall election, the president’s central legislative triumph – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 – will come before the Supreme Court. The justices have the power to declare the law unconstitutional and thereby kill “Obamacare” before it even leaves the birthing chamber. While some believe that such an outcome would be proper, we disagree. A court decision overturning the Affordable Care Act would be an egregious misreading of the Constitution.

The critics’ central constitutional claim is that the 2010 law’s individual-mandate provision exceeds Congress’ regulatory authority. In essence, this provision requires a broad swath of Americans to procure health insurance conforming to certain federal standards. Those who do not procure this insurance must generally pay a “penalty” to the IRS.

Had the bill explicitly used the word “tax” instead of “penalty,” the fatal flaw of the constitutional challenge would be obvious to all. The Constitution undeniably gives Congress sweeping power to tax. And if Congress can tax a person, and then use that tax money to buy a health-care package for that person’s benefit, why can’t it simply direct the person to procure the package himself, or else pay a higher tax?

Of course, tax is a word that lawmakers try to avoid at all costs, and so the euphemistic penalty won the day. Yet, as Shakespeare reminds us, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Here, penalty and tax are simply two ways of saying the same thing.

Indeed, the Constitution itself does not always use the T-word when referring to taxes, broadly defined. It also uses the words excises, duties, and imposts in the opening sentence of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere refers generally to all generic “Bills for raising Revenue.” The important thing here is not the term, but how the actual instrument functions, and clearly Obamacare functions as a tax – as a revenue measure. In perfect synch with the Constitution’s key word, revenue, the penalty section of Obamacare is in fact codified in title 26 – the Internal Revenue Code. The “penalty” is paid to the IRS via forms administered by that very same IRS.

Once we see that the “penalty” is a tax and that Congress has the power to tax, the constitutional case against the law collapses.

But even if the law were not a tax, it still easily passes muster as an exercise of a second key power of Congress – the power to regulate interstate commerce.

There are two questions here. First, is health-care insurance a genuinely commercial issue? Of course. Insurance is a classic economic issue of who pays for what.

Second, does health care raise genuinely interstate issues? In other words, does Obamacare address a problem that truly spills across state lines? Yes, of course.

At any given moment, millions of Americans are in states other than their home state. If they fall sick, they will go to local emergency rooms. But an obvious interstate problem arises when sick out-of-state patients lack insurance, and their emergency-room visits end up being paid for by host-state taxpayers. Obamacare solves this problem by generally requiring Americans to get insurance.

Another interstate problem: When an employed person gets a better job offer from an out-of-state employer, he may not be able to take the job – and thereby contribute more to his family and the general economy – without a rule requiring his new employer to cover his preexisting medical conditions. By imposing this requirement on employers, Obamacare creates greater interstate labor mobility in perfect harmony with the core purpose of the interstate commerce clause.

To our friends in the tea party who think the American Revolution is on their side, we say, think again. The rallying cry of the American Revolution in 1776 was “no taxation without representation!” But the 1787 Constitution’s big idea was taxation with representation. Bluntly, the Constitution was a pro-tax revolution. It aimed to give a representative Congress broad power to tax and to regulate – to do all sorts of things that Parliament could not properly do precisely because the new Congress, unlike the old Parliament, would be elected by American voters who could vote the bums out if we disliked the taxes, or the duties or the excises or the imposts or the penalties or the regulations. Whatever.

The federal government represents voters, so it can tax voters and impose mandates on voters, whether these mandates oblige constituents to join militias or buy muskets (as did the Militia Act of 1792, signed into law by President George Washington), to serve on juries, or buy health-care insurance.

The proper check when Congress has acted within its constitutional power is political, not judicial. So if some justices don’t like the law, they should indeed vote against it – not on the court this spring, but in the election this fall.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 03:35 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
I'm from Missouri.

By way of Bavaria, "der Schau mir Staat."

Almost. The idiomatic phrase is "schau mer mal", optionally amended with "dann seh ma scho". (Roughly, "let's look and we shall see.")
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:34 am
Justice Scalia during oral arguments this week on the challenge to healthcare law:

Quote:
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper, because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.
The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what -- what else can it not do?
GENERAL VERRILLI: This does not violate the norm of proper as this Court articulated it in Printz or in New York because it does not interfere with the States as sovereigns. This is a regulation that -- this is a regulation -
JUSTICE SCALIA: No, that wasn't my point. That is not the only constitutional principle that exists.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But it -
JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government. Do you acknowledge that that's a principle?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Of course we do, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. That's what we are talking about here.
GENERAL VERRILLI: And the way in which this Court in its cases has policed the boundary that -- of what's in the national sphere and what's in the local sphere is to ask whether Congress is regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
And here I think it's really impossible, in view of our history, to say that Congress is invading the State sphere. This is a -- this is a market in which 50 percent of the people in this country get their health care through their employer. There is a massive Federal tax subsidy of $250 billion a year that makes that much more affordable. ERISA and HIPAA regulate that to ensure that the kinds of bans on pre-existing condition discrimination and pricing practices that occur in the individual market don't occur.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't understand your point -
GENERAL VERRILLI: This is in -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Whatever the States have chosen not to do, the Federal Government can do?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, not at all.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean, the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people. And the argument here is that the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But this -- but, Your Honor, this is -- what the Court has said, and I think it would be a very substantial departure from what the Court has said, is that when Congress is regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, that will be upheld. And that is what is going on here. And to embark on -- I would submit with all due respect, to embark on the kind of analysis that my friends on the other side suggest the Court ought to embark on is to import Lochner-style substantive due process -
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/15/2019 at 06:24:55